nb Dt 
nie) 


AB} 
i 








ete eae ee = 








BR 65.A65 A5 1906 

Angus, Samuel, 1881=1943 

The sources of the first ten 
books of Augustine's 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/sourcesoffirsttenO0Oangu 





THE SOURCES 


OF THE FIRST TEN BOOKS OF 


AUGUSTINE’S DE CIVITATE DE! 





“A THESIS 
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
| FOR THE DEGREE OF 
BOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


Vv 
By S. Ancus, M.A. 


Exspectabat enim fundamenta habentem 
civitatem cuius artifex et conditor Deus. 


PRINCETON 
1906. 





THE SOURCES 


OF THE FIRST TEN BOOKS OF 


AUGUSTINE’S DE CIVITATE DEI 





A THESIS 
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
| FOR THE DEGREE OF 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


Vv 
By S. Ancus, M.A. 


Exspectabat enim fundamenta habentem 
civitatem cuius artifex et conditor Deus. 


PRINCETON 
1906. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

1 Note, : : : ; ; : : 3 
2 Bibliography, . : ‘ : : : 4 
3 Introductory, . : Peet ° 6 
I Literary Sources in Boats I—x - 9 
Note on Composition of DCD. by A. F. West, 60 
II Annotations on Books 1—x . - : 64 
III Augustine’s Knowledge of Greek  . : 236 
Some Theses, , i : : 274 
General Analysis, : : A 279 

; 281 


Errata, 


SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS USED. 


BE—Benedictine Edition (in Migne). 
DCD—De Civitate Dei. 
RD—The last sixteen books (Rerum Divinarum) in Varro’s 


Antiquitates. 


NOTE. 


The following treatise—the work of three happy years— 
was not at first intended as a thesis fcr a doctor’s degree, but 
has been converted from its original purpose. 

It was started in the first place at the suggestion of 
Professor A. F. West, and it is due to his personal encourage- 
ment that it has been completed. I wish to offer him my 
sincere thanks for having read through all my work in MS, 
for calling my attention to some things I had overlooked, and 
for the help derived from his own MS notes. Thanks are also due 
to Professors Winans and Westcott for suggestions; also to Dr. 
E. C. Richardson, Librarian of Princeton University, and to 
Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary, 
for having procured for me so many books I wished to consult. 

Se AS 
Classical Seminary, 
Princeton University, 
March, Ig06. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


1. In preparing this thesis it was necessary to read of Au- 
gustine’s writings the following entire: De Civitate Dei, Con- 
fessiones, De Doctrina Christiana, De Urbis Excidio, Retrac- 
tationes, and all his exegetical and controversial works; and in 
part also the Epistulae (especially the letters to Jerome, Mar- 
cellinus and Paulinus) and Sermones ; also the following entire: 
Livy (with the Epitomes), Florus and Eutropius, Velleius 
Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Sallust, Cicero’s philosophical 
and rhetorical works, Quintus Curtius, Justin, Orosius, and 
the’ remains of Varro and Porphyry; also most of Aulus 
Gellius, Apuleius, Minucius Felix, Lactantius, Plotinus, Hy- 
ginus, and parts of Plutarch, Plato, Tertullian, Arnobius, 
Cyprian, Rufinus, Paulinus of Nola, Eusebius, Ambrose, 
Ausonius, Symmachus, Procopius, Sozomen and Socrates; 
beside consulting other ancient writers incidentally. 


2. The list given below excludes standard writers of gen- 
eral reference, such as Zeller, Mommsen, Milman, Gib- 
bon, Villemain, Gregorovius, Ozanam, Boissier and Bury; as 
well as editions of Augustine and the other ancient writers 
consulted. An asterisk is prefixed to a few which have been 
found to be of especial importance. 

*Agahd, R.: Quaestiones Varronianae (in Jahrbiicher fiir 
classische Philologie, Supplementband 24. Leipzig, 1897). 

*Clausen, H. N.: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis 
Sacrae Scripturae Interpres. Hauniae, 1827. 

Cunningham, W.: S. Austin and his place in the history 
of Christian thought (Hulsean lectures, 1885). London, 1886. 

Dill, S.: Roman society in the last century of the 
Western empire. London, 1898. 

* Francken, C. H. J.: Fragmenta M. Ter. Varronis quae 
inveniuntur in libris S. Augustini De civitate Dei, Lugduni 
Batavorum, 1836. 

Frick, C.: Die Quellen Augustins im XVIII Buche 
seiner Schrift de civitate dei. H6xter, 1886. 


5 


* Grandgeorge, L.: Saint Augustin et le néo-platonisme. 
Paris, 1896. (Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes études, vol. 7.) 

Jiirges, P.: De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis capita 
selecta. Einbeck, 1892. 

* Kuhlmann, Hermann: De veterum historicorum in 
Augustini de civitate dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis. 
Schleswig, 1900. . 

* Loesche, G.: De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de 
deo. lIenae, 1880. 

McCabe, J.: Saint Augustine and his age. London, 1902. 

Martin, Jules, Saint Augustin. Paris, 1go1. 

Maurenbrecher: C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum reliquiae. 
Leipzig, 1891. 

Neimann, A.: Augustin’s Geschichtsphilosophie. Geifs- 
wald, 1895. 

Nourrisson: La philosophie de Saint Augustin (2 vols.). 
Paris, 1866. 

* Pirogoff, W.: De Eutropii breviarii ab U. C. indole ac 
fontibus. Berlin (no date. Thesis for 1873). 

Poujalet, : Histoire de Saint Augustin (3 vols.). Paris, 1845. 

*Reuter, H.: Augustinische Studien. Gotha, 1887. 

Richter, A.: Neu-Platonische Studien. Darstellung des 
Lebens und der Philosophie des Plotin. Halle, 1867. 

Saisset, Emile: La cité de Dieu de Saint Augustin, 
French trans. (4 vols.). Paris, 1855. 

Schmid, Reinhold: Marius Victorinus Rhetor und seine 
Beziehungen zu Augustin. Kiel, 1895. : 

Schéler, H.: Augustins Verhaltniss zu Plato in genetischer 
Entwicklung. Jena, 1897. 

*Schwarz: De Varronis apud sanctos patres vestigiis in 
Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. Supplementband. Leipzig, 
18388, pp. 409-499. 

Schneegans, C. F.: Appréciation de Saint Augustin 
d’aprés ses travaux sur l’herméneutique sacrée. Strasbourg, 
1848. 

Seyrich, G. J.: Die Geschichtsphilosophie Augustins nach 
seiner schrift De Civitate Dei. Chemnitz, 1891. 


Smith, J. R.: Augustine as an Exegete. (In Bibliotheca 
Sacra, April, 1904). 

Spence, H. D. W.: Early Christianity and Paganism. 
New York (no date). 

Trench, R. C.: Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount 
drawn from the writings of St. Augustine. London, 1869. 

Zumetikos, A. M.: De Alexandri Olympiadisque epistu- 
larum fontibus et reliquiis. Berlin, 1894. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


This thesis has three parts. The first attempts to ex- 
hibit completely, and in detail under each author, all the as- 
certainable literary sources, except the Bible, used by Augus- 
tine in the first ten books of The City of God. This part on 
the Literary Sources has been written to include the sources 
as given by Dombart and Hoffmann, and in addition the con- 
clusions I have worked out in the second part of this thesis, — 
the Annotations to Books I-X. In order to doso I have gone 
over every case where a literary source is required, and have 
searched all the extant sources to which Augustine could have 
had access, and several to which he could not, or did not, 
have access. In the Annotations, which are almost exclusive- 
ly restricted to the sources not specified in Dombart, when I 
quote from, or refer to, the writings of Valerius Maximus, 
Velleius Paterculus, Julius Obsequens, also to Plutarch, Por- 
phyry, Plotinus and Plato in Greek, and others mot mentioned in 
the part on the Sources, it is not to be supposed that these are 
suggested as sources for Augustine’s knowledge. They are 
given simply for fulness of detail, or because they have pre- 
served for us information once found in sources used by Au- 
gustine but now no longer extant. For example when Plut- 
arch is quoted, it is because he either confirms Livy (Augus- 
tine’s source for the particular place), or because he has pre- 
served for us information which was found in portions of Livy 
now lost, and of which we have only the later epitomes. 


7 


Similarly Julius Obsequens has been quoted to confirm Livy’s 
own work or to supply the missing part required. 

The Annotations on books I-X contain matter which 
could not be treated of in the part on the Sources. The fact 
that the Annotations has partly the same aim as the part on 
the Sources may excuse the frequent cross-references, and the 
perhaps too frequent repetition of the same Latin passages. 
These latter have been given for the sake of fulness and for 
convenience of the reader. Each part is intended to supple- 
ment the other. Biblical passages and references have not 
been touched upon, as Dombart gives them almost complete. 
I have, however, added one instance which he has not re- 
corded. 

The text adopted as the basis for working has been that 
of Dombart (2 vols., Leipzig, 1877-’92), not without reference 
to Hoffmann’s text. The former is referred to by page and line 
throughout the notes; and the pair of heavy-faced numbers 
given at the edge of the page before each note also refers to 
Dombart’s text. 

In the Annotations I have not mentioned any of the re- 
ferences given in Dombart, except occasionally for some parti- 
cular purpose. As Dombart did not make any special study 
of the sources, there are but few cases where there is occasion 
to quote his references, and all such I hope have been acknowl- 
edged. Dombart himself took his references chiefly from 
Duebner as we learn from his own words: Notas lo- 
Gouri. ave VAUSWStino | lexi al iis libris 
eve tad t Or wim. peo pe “omnes ex editione 


Pme pie hit wg wi hat hac O pervs ‘pam te 
CMC wmemiissime yerSatus €St, mut uat us 
Sia i. Dithe “t-Orn tes wind € Awe us tin us 


awEvepat acc uratims indagandos, cum 
met ivie que tempus. mequeé vires sup - 
pewe fem t. ~ hoe. ~imec oO f11 a bis Ee. lion = 
quiesh. a wom pout a v1 -Gpra ef. <p. x). 

For the acknowledged fragments of Varro, where nothing 
more could be added, reference is made the editions of 


Francken, Schwarz and Agahd; but one fragment not 
noticed by these I have discussed and assigned to Varro. 

Most of the fragments of Porphyry, to be found in the 
ten books of City of God which lie within the scope of this 
thesis, have not hitherto been collected and specifically as- 
signed to their respective books. Ihave collected them and 
attempted to assign each to its source in the light of all evi- 
dence I could find. 

The necessity for the third part of this thesis—the part 
on Augustine’s Knowledge of Greek—was suggested by Au- 
gustine’s references to Plato, Porphyry and Plotinus in the 
DCD. I have not followed any authority here. Besides 
reading the limited literature on this subject, it was necessary 
to go over all the Confessions and City of God and all his 
exegetical and controversial works, as well as several others, 
with a view to collect the principal evidence bearing upon that 
subject. 

For the convenience of readers some of the principal 
theses maintained are excerpted and printed together at the 
end. A table of such errata as have been noticed is added. 

Finally great care has been taken to avoid mistakes in 
references, but it is to be feared some slips may still remain 
uncorrected. 

And now may this slight though laborious contribution 
to the explanation of Augustine’s masterwork be commended 
to readers in his own closing words: Quibus parum 
Vel Quibus DimMium lest, Athi? Tepes 
Gants Geibus autem Satis:ésit, nie mies 
sed  Dee@ Mecum congratubantes agame: 


5. A, 


I. LITERARY SOURCES OF AUGUSTINE. 
De Civitate-~Dei I-X. 


We shall take up first those Sources which Augustine him- 
self mentions as having known, and secondly those Sources 
which, though not mentioned by him, we have evidence to 
show he used. 

A. SOURCES MENTIONED BY AUGUSTINE. 


I. Among these we find the names of pagan poets 
all of whom were Latin except Homer. 


E CLAUDIAN. 


In DCD V. 26 he mentions Claudian and quotes from him 
two verses in praise of Theodosius from the De tertio 
consulatu Honorii. He has either given the quo- 
tation from memory, as we find he has quoted elsewhere, DCD 
V. 8, and omitted the line fundit ab antris|{Aeo- 
lus armatas hiemes cui, or else this line was not 
found in his manuscript if he had one. But it is more likely 
that he has erred in the quotation, as c ui occurs at the same 
place in both lines and passing from the first cui to the 
word following the second cui gives a hexameter line. He 
Saysiot, Claudiany ia) ©hrisiti: nomine,alienus, 
and this testimony of his should be accepted as we cannot rea- 
sonably conclude from Claudian’s poems that he was a Chris- 
tian ; and Orosius supports the opinion of Augustine, speaking 
Gi ClauGian ass pore tay quid é mex imius. sed 
Ploanws perv icacissiim us. The: above is, the 
only place in all the writings of Augustine where he mentions 
Claudian. 


2. ENNIUS. 


This poet he knew through the writings of Cicero, see 
DCD II. 21, where he cites Ennius from the De Republica of 
Cicero. But he had a larger knowledge of Ennius than this, 
for in De Trinitate 13. 3.6 he quotes a verse of Ennius—found 
again, slightly different, in Ep. 231.3—-which cannot be found 


10 


in all the works of Cicero. From DCD VII. 27 we gather that 
he knew Ennius’ translation of the t¢pa advaypady of Euhemerus: 
Ct, Uae ae amie 16m \p e-r t 12n e mite om 
Sequuntur, totam dé hoe Su nem ems 
Pid ued thes for tam sq dam Bnn 1s Wire art 
UWwmMVertit elogduium, Andre arti 
rima ip Osler wat qui c.on tra, h wis vmgomn 
GEO mes atte ngs Vel "Grae © sie fanomec 
Tel Latin® scrips errant, non im so mihs 
placuit inmorari-—a possage which suggests that 
Augustine knew more about the Euhemerus of Ennius than he 
could have got by solely consulting the only place in Cicero 
where the same translation is referred to (De Natura Deorum 
P42. 119.) Quid? quit aut fortis aut clares 
aut potentis viros tradumnt post more 
tem ad deos peTfvenisse, COSque esse 
ips os gquos nos colere-precarl vy emer ae 
rique soleamtus, Nonme experies Sunk 
religionum ommnium? quae ratio mazxz= 
ime tractata ab ‘bh whemero ves * (qn em 
nester Ot interpretatea suet sect ws ese 
praeter ceteros Enwius. In spite of the simi- 
larity between this passage and that of Augustine, still Augus- 
tine’s own words quae ad hanc rem perti- 
nentia consequnnturand nonin eo mihi 
placuit inmorari lead us to infer he knew more 
about this subject than is found in Cicero, if he had seen fit 
to dwell upon it. 


3. HORACE, 


There are three quotations in the DCD. In DCD I. 3 
Augustine quotes Horace (naming him): secundum 
iliuad Horatii 

Oo Semel est im buta sec € ns “s era 
Dit 10.0-0%t © in: 

Testa A; 


II 


Evidently he knew his Horace well enough to quote some 
familiar commonplaces. In DCD V. 13 he mentions and 
quotes Horace against the Romans. Augustine there cites 
him Ep. 1. 1. 36 to show that Horace held the same views as 
he himself. didonm amorem lauwdis Vitium esse, 
and again, Odes 2.2.0, ad reprimendam domi- 
may cued bidim em ita cecintt. 


Z EUCAN. 


There are six quotations in DCD. That Augustine 
used Lucan we are not at all surprised, as Lucan’s 
poem was in itself a rebuke to the Romans, painting in the 
darkest colours the decadent state of Rome, the corrup- 
tion of politics, private enmity, public calamity, the horrors 
of civil war, the dubious attitude toward religion. The pre- 
prevailing hopelessness of Lucan about his country would 
find such expression as-would suit Augustine to use in his 
arguments against the pagans. In DCD I. 12 he quotes 
him (Phar. 7. 819) in connection with the argument for the 
comparative unimportance of burial, and in III. 13 for the 
civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In III. 27 he quotes 
Lucan in proof of the terrible vengeance taken by Sulla on his 
entry into Rome. In DCD X. 16 he quotes him (Phar. 6.506) 
for witchcraft. 


5. PERSIUS. 


In DCD II. 6 Augustine cites Persius (Sat. 3.66) as an 
example of the moral lessons which the people ought to hear, 
but do not hear, at public spectacles, and in the next chapter 
(II. 7) for a description of passion. 


6. TERENTIANUS MAURUS. 


In DED VI. 2' (Seetalso DCD vol. 2, p. 257.22) he quotes 
a hendecasyllabic verse from the poet Terentianus Maurus in 
praise of the great learning of Varro. Terentianus was an 
African, like Augustine himself, who may have used as a text- 


12 


book the poem of Terentianus, De litteris, syllabis, pedibus, 
metris. In De utilitate credendi 7.17 Augustinesays Nulla 
im buitms spoeti ca. disci pli'nay temenmera- 
num “Mawrtm Sine magis tro “at temeere 
nO By ae ler ers! . 


7. TERENCE. 


Though Augustine has elsewhere often mentioned and 
quoted Terence, he does so only once in DCD I-X, namely 
II.7, where he cites from the Eunuchus (584). 


8. VALERIUS SORANUS. 


Augustine did not know Valerius Soranus directly, as he 
found in Varro the two verses he cites from him in support of 
Roy is Om nia i lena (BCD Vil. 9). 


9. VIRGIL. 


Of all the poets mentioned by Augustine he made the 
most frequent and extensive use of Virgil. He quotes him 
about seventy timesin the DCD——-more than the total of his 
quotations from all the other poets. The quotations are massed 
most heavily in the opening five books. He tells us of his boy- 
ish interest~in the story of Aeneas (Conf. 1. 13. 21 sq); and 
for Virgil he has the greatest praise. Augustine knew his 
Virgil intimately. He says of him (DCD 1.3) teneris 
eb bitus -aaiimis- moa fare tl 6 obltaw tonnre 
possit aboleri: ‘He quotes. from the Aeneid, thie 
Eclogues and the Georgics, but far most frequently from the 
Aeneid. Augustine quotes Virgil for Roman history and mythol- 
ologyin DCDA, 2, Tle, Tl. rr, Til. 2g, 111. 14, Yl 16, Vora. 
for the pride and high estate of Rome in DCD praef.,1.6,V. 12; 
for the helplessness of the gods of Rome to protect their 
worshipers and their need of their worshipers’ to 
protect, senem: an.) WCD- 1.37" -€ cee qi ia sas 
dts ur bem Rom and serv an d am .seticom- 
mists se cau die b.ant,. 1.4, IIL. 7, i grin DCW ize 
he quotes Virgil with sarcastic reference to the gods being of- 
fended at the morals of the citizens ; and for the moral deteri- 


13 


oration of Rome in DCD III. 10. For the dangers and im- 
morality arising from the Roman religion he cites the favorite 
poet of the Romans against themselves in DCD I. 19, where 
those who died by suicide are represented by Virgil as having 
an unhappy existence in the under world; in VIII. rg for the 
evilsof magicae artes, andin X ro about the many- 
shaped Proteus. In DCD IV. 9g, IV. 10, VII. 9 he quotes him 
for the all-permeating influence of Jupiter ; compare also DCD 
IV. rr. In DCD V. 18 he cites him to prove that Brutus who 
slew his own sons for the sakeof his country was in felix. In 
Dep Vier the words so le ut ‘enim € ss clad risum 
force es tare an-echo of Virgil Kel.’ 49) se'd* fa ca les 
nymphae risere. In DCD IX. 16 Augustine probably 
cites Virgil’s clarissima mundi l]lumin aindirectly 
from Apuleius De deo Socratis chap. 1. In DCD VII. 9 he 
mites thes vine.” felia “qui Bont ut er dm 
crore oO SG er € Ca i sia S with reference fo Deus est; 
Maiti tt a benms? potes tat em causa rdm 
Cet se. did mid ft t in “moun do ;' he: quotes 
him in DCD IX. 4 to describe perfect composure of mind. In 
X. 30 he shows how Prophyry has refuted one of the doctrines 
of Virgil in regard to purified souls being called to taste of 
Lethe. In X. 27 Augustine quotes from the fourth eclogue of 
Virgil as prophetic of the coming glory of the Kingdom of 
Ciist—poetice quidem!’ quia in ‘alte riu's 
Meghna aprek sO a. veraciter: ta.m-e:n 
si ad ipsum referas. Lastly we notice what we 
may term an etymological use of Virgil, in DCD V. 19 from 
men7. 200) for the: use of the word ty ranni; non 


pIets Ski mei) <a tig we inminp tobi Terese) Sid sed 
Mee cimew Mom iim el tow tes dic tis cand: again in 
XE for seve bom ir ‘fromeAen 1:12: 

10. HOMER. 


As for Homer, Augustine had read him, though distaste- 
ful, in his school days (Conf. 1. 14. 23). Yet he mentions or 
quotes him only four (or five) times in the DCD, never in 
Greek, always in Latin, and does not seem to have made any 


14 


extensive use of him. In DCD III. 2 he tells us Homer makes 
Neptune oppose and Apollo favor the Trojans. In DCD V. 8 
he quotes two verses quos Cicero in Latinum 
vertit. He probably found these lines in the De Fato of 
Cicero ; twice more he refers to Homer on the authority of 
Cicero, and once on the authority of Varro. In DCD IX. 1 it 
is a question whether Io Vie. m*s.= ja be Lome rna 
fateantur nuncupatum is foundin our Homer, 
except by implication in Iliad I. 222. I do not believe that 
this statement of Augustine has been made from direct knowl- 
edge of Homer, as fate antur seems to be against this. 
I think Augustine took it from Lactantius Div. Inst. 4. 27. 15. 
See note p. 368. 16. 


II. Turning now from the poets used and named by Augustine 
in De Civitate Dei 1-x to the prose writers named we 
find much greater variety. Some of them call for little or 
no notice. Those mentioned by name in books t-x are (in 
alphabetical order) Apuleius, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Justinus, 
Labeo, Livy, Plato, Pliny, Plotinus, Pomponius, Porphyry, 
Sallust, L. Annaeus Seneca, Tertullian and Varro, 


t. APULELUS. 


The use of Apuleius is almost exclusively confined to the 
parts of the DCD which discuss Neoplatonism. ‘The first men- 
tion in the DCD occurs in VIII. r2:in utraque autem 
net ayetdv est set .Geacca vet Latinas A'pubeqms 
Afer;e x titit P lationicus mobilis. Adcustine 
mentions the De deo Socratis of Apuleius in DCD VIII. 
iWon tMeScrt pst) (labr wm: cutis) wersisie 
tit a lhumrvioludit dé deo So era tus.) “This iseche 
work from which Augustine has quoted most, and the one which 
he has most severely criticised. In DCD VIII. r4 the earlier 
part of the chapter (before mention of Apuleius occurs) is evi- 
dently taken from that author. Augustine uses the quote- 
word inquiunt twice (p. 341. roand 23), andthe subject 
of gods, demons and men, and of their respective places and 


15 


relations, is what we find in the de deo Socratis, and in line 
RomiNessays.. Ciu-diemisierere a iprud, a:l.io.s qu oe.que 
TCWG tid: Tht Ulla AMO RUMIRG tMiSa oi iss Meith. Yoeleldie 
ia. Cy te *s Ol lfa Sie Piep st, lib, Gu mi: 

Augustine then briefly explains the subject matter of the 
de deo Socratis in some general statements. The whole four- 
teenth chapter is taken in substance from that work. The 
fifteenth chapter is largely a criticism of the same. In it he 
still refers to the same author as we see from inquiunt 
(peo ttees ang eNepradhe cus. 0) ed eit. (p. 344.22)! 
Inchap. 16he begins De moribus ergo daemonum 
croemest die in Platoon Wwe use lo. que t-e-tu rT cand then 
gives quotations mostly word for word from Apuleius and fol- 
lows these by a criticism. 

inechapea7 he treats of the perturb ationes to 
which Apuleius granted the demons were subject, and shows 
how unworthy such beings are of worship who are moved by 
all the passions of humanity; iste Apuleius (p. 347.7). 
In chap. 18 the criticism of the same work is continued. This 
same work was in Augustine’s mind in chapters 20, 21, 22. 

In DCD IX. 3 he again quotes from the de deo Socratis 
and proceeds to criticism, and chap. 4 is connected with this, 
because the review of opinions of philosophers on de his 
pain trot DiS. \mraey OL perturbation és 
arises out of the quotation from Apuleius in the preceding 
chapter, so that chapters 4 and 5 really continue the criticism. 
In chap. 6 he again names Apuleius. 

In chap. 7 he takes up a new subject from Apuleius, 
namely the distinction of the functions of gods and demons. 
This is continued (with quotations) in chap. 8 and criticised 
in chap. 9. Chap. 10, where Augustine introduces the opinion 
of Plotinus, is a criticism on Apuleius’ work, for Augustine 
has kept him still in mind, as he begins chap. 11 with dicit 
referring to Apuleius. Chap. 12 gives large quotations from 
the de deo Socratis with Augustine’s criticism which is also 
continued in chap. 13,and after an excursus devoid of all liter- 
ary Citation in chap. 14 and 15, he returns in chapter 16 to 
the same author. 


16 


In DCD X. 9 (ad fin).) he again refers to the de deo 
Socratis, though not mentioning that work. In X. 27 there is 
another reference to the same work. 


We thus see that Augustine was thoroughly conversant 
with the de deo Socratis of Apuleius, that he has given large 
quotations from it and attacked it with severe criticism. 


He was also acquainted with the Asclepius, or Dialogus 
Hermetis Trismegisti, though he does not refer to it so often 
or quote so much from it as from the De deo Socratis. He 
refers first to it in DCD VIII. 23 where he also gives large 
extracts ; and in chap. 24 he gives a long quotation and then 
a criticism, and so again in chap. 26. In DCD IV. 2 he refers 
to and quotes from the De Mundo. ‘Though Augustine has 
not quoted from the Apologia, or De Magia, it is likely he had 
read it: he mentions it in connection with magic arts in DCD 
Vil. 16 -e xitiat. OL ab 1.0 22g. nc ram eum ae cea 
Ma OC A T UsMy la se alleen a am es semducsee meciiat: 
Sieg tre Ay MincveMt, non V ult: sin no Crem aem 
Videri D1Si¢.a megan dog wae m0 np o's Suimt 
ab, 1mm o1ciem te comm ittt, Dheseewordsiseem, ‘te 
show that he had read it enough to know the method of 
Apuleius’ defense. From Apuleius Augustine no doubt got 
much general information on theology and philosophy which he 
does not specifically mention. 


2, CICERO. 


Cicero is one of the most important of Augustine’s sources 
in DCD I-X. He mentions him by name often: Compare 
DED Mio. 7am ago bees Loe TM are Ve os 
TVigORV. 2 VAS Veg, W226) Vie) Vilin gel X. 4, Moers 
He quotes him verbatim in II. 9 evidently with. a copy 
of Cicero before him, deinde paulo post (p, 63.15) 
angead. “wer b wm) sexcier pen da. jar bitraitaus 
Sim (pos 2a)e hag ier, U1: ery ag Lier Iv, 
26 AV eso. UV 696, Veg ay Live EX: on Tn eC Dts Vea: awe 
cannot be certain whether the words O miserum cui 


17 


peceare, licebat. ware verbatim from’ Cicero ‘or 
whether they merely give the sentiment. In DCD II. 11 and 
II. 12 herefers to the De Re pub. of Cicero. The above named 
passages need no remark. 


More interesting is it to note the use which Augustine has 
made of Cicero as an authority without mentioning him as such 

In DCD I. 3 (p. 8. 9) Augustine uses the expression 
Gordatos. ~bh:o. mines, They word -cordato.s 
savours of Ennius, but as we find only a scanty use of 
Ennius made by Augustine, it is quite possible that Augustine 
got this word from Cicero Tusc I. 9. 18 or De Re pub. I. 18. 30 
with both of which works Augustine was well acquainted. Of 
course he may have met the word also in the viri cordati 
of the vulgate, but zof the [tala of Job 34. 10: but if 
Augustine had had this in mind he would naturally have writ- 
tenner rd a.tos viros for cordatos homines, 


In DCD I. 15 (p. 26.33) Augustine writes Si autem 
Ce tihtvels Roe cml um: €tiam- in. tl bas ca p= 
Mivesane tihisque Cruciatibus. corporis 
DVM Virtute beatum esse potwis se 
Surely here he had in mind Cic. De Finn. 2.20.65 dicet 
Powe Mepsida cv it tus (mec. dubita bit, 15 t1 
(ese O beat o Mo Regulum .amte’p one re 

Siainiat wrrtas beatioceéem fuisse 
wan Oban tem in rosa Thori1tim. .The 
coincidence of the language and thought suggests that he had 
Cicero in mind. 


In DCD I. 22 (p. 36.27) it seems to me that the story of 
Cleombrotus ile potius Cleombrotus in hac 
AM wea oon iteiTdinnve | re peritur quem 
HOMO tombe Cr Ovuro lh atron is libro, whi de 
LVM ontalatate, -antuniae dis putavit, se 
Prwceipitem dedisse de imiuro atqué ita 
eae mace Vita -“Gmigras sé “aid eam quam 
Pied. dit oes ste, mm elior em. Nai hil) enum 
Unee bat aut calamitatigs:aut.criminis 


18 


must have been suggested by Cicero Tusc. 1.34.84 Cal- 
limachi quidem epigram ma inp. ae 
Ciotanm Cle ombrotum est @ wem airaeum 
ei nahiimwecidisset adv ers 1,” -e.fmpeoeucre 
in mare \iabiecisise. There is really no ‘other source 
used by Augustine, which contains the story. 


In DCD II. 14 we have the account of Plato’s banishing 
the poets from his ideal state, and his reasons for doing so: 
ESte Ver Ore GeoTruim iniutias) gine yee 
twill test “uc a ri rc Ot Gimeprdg We five arenes 
animos Civium nolwit. Of course Augustine did 
not get this from Plato’s Republic in the original. He proba- 
bly had recourse to the fourth book of Cicero’s De Re pub., 
with which book we know that he was well acquainted, and in 
which we learn from the casual fragment of Nonius this sub- 
ject was treated. A somewhat similar notice is found in Tusc 
2.11.27, but we rather think that the fourth book of Cicero’s 
De Re pub. was Augustine’s source here (see note p. 69.10). 


In DCD II. 16 Cicero seems to be Augustine’s authority 
for Writing .quamvis “Liycurous Saeed dare. 
moniis Peeces ex Ap olilitaas vac tom trae 
Se imstitursse comt (nwedr i toee Dein i 4omD 
and N.D. 3.38.91; and probably Cicero De Re pub. 2.14.26 
was known to Augustine in his account of the civil and relig- 
ious legislation of Numa Pompilius found in this same chapter, 
though Livy seems here to be at least a co-ordinate source. 
Compare Livy 1.19 sq. 

Cicero is undoubtedly Augustine’s authority in DCD II. 
20 (p. 79.5) in the story of Sardanapalus. Compare, with the 
account of Augustine, Tusc. 5:35.101 Sardana paid 

qutincidl aussit in busto. 
Enaec, baab 60  GU.a.e (€.d:1 <q ua qe see 
fata, 1 ibad.o 


Hause; atiilla iaeent multa et*praés 
elara imei Gta% 


Ig 


Cicero mentions the voluptousness of the same king in De 
Finn. 2.32.106, and we know from the scholiast on Juvenal 
10.362 that Cicero said something of him in the the third book 
of the De Re pub.—probably more than the scholiast gives. 
We know of no other literary source than Cicero from which 
Augustine could have drawn this narrative so much resem- 
bling that of Cicero. 


Perhaps also the contrast between Marius and Regulus in 
DCD II. 23 was suggested by Cicero Paradoxa 2.16, 


In DCD IIL. 9 (p. 106 11) Augustine refers to Cicero in 
themwords: viel ut alii volumt, trivginta 
novem anni, for the length of Numa’sreign .This is the 
number which Cicero gives (De Re pub. 2.14. 27) following 
the authority of Polybius. 


Again Cicero is Augustine’s chief authority in the account 
of the death of Romulus and the action of Julius Proculus in 
DCD III. 15. As we know from the rest of the chapter (on 
which see notes p. 116.12, 117.8) Cicero was not his only au- 
thority, but he has followed him principally, if not altogether, 
in the opening part of the chapter. Cicero alone is the au- 
EMOriEye ton. Su b.0 Ena tum Valium, Proc ut um, 
And Augustine shows below that he knew the account of 
Ciceroa (pe stt6.30), Ci c.erso,, i.) lasmy inter die os 
Mmuimin te Geprion em... > » -Siegniticat 
quoting from the De Re pub. andfor the solis defectio 
he gives a fragment on p. 117.21 from the Hortensius of 
Cicctou site cas) deem ten e.b.1 4S, ¢-f f-1.c isa t.fq)u ays 
Cie eLC Hla im iene acta. ik Om uli) (G@ U1. 0) SvC:u f:- 
apn HO nee eS Outi S. 6 Gt. fia crt Si Lhe eet Ol Pate G 
Re MOG utd temas e iid tle dis Cerptum eos e., 
it is true, does not occur in any of the extant works of Cicero. 
Livy gives this (1.16.4) as a report which he did not credit : 
mies c sn uintaeioO Ss gia .d.iS,c eT pt um 
Beceem Patyum Manibus. taciti arg uer- 
ent. It is possible that Augustine while following Cicero’s 
narrative may have had in his mind this detail from his knowl- 


20 


edge of Livy, but there is no reason why we should suppose 
that this dismemberment of Romulus by the Senate was not 
recorded either in one of the lost parts of Cicero’s De Re pub- 
lica or in the lost Hortensius. 


In DCD IV. 4 (p. 150.27) we have another clear case 
where Cicero has beenused: Alexandro illi Ma- 
eno" Quidam compre hén.s-us pita tay eee 
Spon dit Nam). canm)idiem rex: bh ommmengem 
PNEe Lora ssiet Squad” -é i: >) iyiidex et apy eee 
Mare tntestaret, ille libera <0 ntamrae 
erica Oliuso dd) tabu, i qi be ter Dseom. aetceeta 
Nae 0 i Sed -qild a: i. (8: e Oo e-x 1:8 1 0 - tealvige to 
Pacts attr OO.” (VOC iy: aiid — Es mipaaoued 
classe,imperator. Compare with these words those 
of Cicero preserved by Nonius (pages 125, 318, 534) M. Tul - 
iracs die re: tpiacb~ Tb’. 4°) on arm ye wimg unare re 
return ex’ efo - qe. Ss Ge We mes .c, oummepanines 105 
mare ‘hia De ret ta fe's t an un om! yo paar ones 
“€0 Gem. 1 qQatt > “q2lo’ st 76 fib eum tee megane 
There is no doubt but that the passage from which this extract 
of Nonius is taken would have told the whole story given 
above by Augustine. Nonius’ extract is very incomplete, as 
he wished to quote only so much from Cicero as would serve 
his purpose, namely to prove that infestum mare 
aber est. po vmiare kato cunean.d'o ant € oe 
taret. Wesee this also from the way the extract begins 
Gum quarere tur ex eo ,—Nonius not bene con- 
cerned to state or identify the noun (pirata) in Cicero 
to which the eo refers. Pirata in Cicero is allimportant 
to the story, but of no importance to Nonius for purely lexical 
purposes. 

In DCD IV. 20 (p. 169 15) we must conclude that Cicero 
isthe source: Virtutem in @ Ua tt ior spree tes 
dts tripe idam €sise vid er mt. Jor eidreme- 
hii ia st tram.) for tit a ew se tem 
perantiam. This four-fold division of Plato (De Legg. 
1.631 C), is repeated in Apuleius (De dog. Platonis 2.1) in 


21 


whoseaccount pudicitiam isthe same astemperan- 
tiam of Augustine. See note p. 169.14 where it is shown 
Jerome knew that this four-fold division was found in the works 
of Cicero, and from Augustine’s own testimony (De Trin. 14.- 
g.12) that he found it in the lost Hortensius of Cicero. It 
may be noticed that it was found more than once in Cicero, as 
Jerome speaks of Cicero treating these four virtues in of - 
ficiorum libris, while Augustine says De omni- 
pais yah meLn eq CU antit won iC ivi-r tu ti cbsus.) 
Deities neeLiAormtie nesiO Ldedcalvo.g: Osa sp ui 
fam Sse) dhereds thereforemo doubt thatiin the DEDTV. zo 
Cicero, though not there mentioned, is Augustine’s source. 


Homme nt orbit er il luedit comm men tim ‘de 
f eget eso ta) in DED WV. 2\(p: 1934392) there-1s,-sofar as 
I know, no literary authority except this passage of Augustine, 
and it is impossible to say with certainty whom Augustine has 
followed in this story. But the probabilities are greatly in 
favor of Ciceronian authority. See the note on this passage 
(p. 193.32) in which it is pointed out that the Nigidius Figulus, 
about whom the story is related, was on very friendly terms 
with Cicero, had some correspondence with him and is chiefly 
mentioned in his works. A second argument which I think 
points in the same direction is derived from the words in - 
quit, inquit (p. 194.6 and 9g) used parenthetically in 
relating the story. These words [| take as referring still to the 
same author, namely Cicero, who has been his authority in 
chap. 2. A third and still stronger argument in support of 
Ciceronian authority, may be advanced from a close examina- 
tion of the context. Chap. 3 is closely connected with 
chap. 2, note itaque, and it isstillonthe same subject. 
ie besins © F muisthra, itagiie vadiertur no bile 
Pad Veco mime nits y dre at italiano ta). Towhat 
does adfertur refer? Insupport of what is no bile 
illud commmentum brought forward? Only one 
answer is possible : it refers back to the astrologia 
treated of in the preceding chapter, in which chapter Cicero 
was the authority. From all this we conclude that he too is the 


22 


authority for this story in the beginning of chap. 3, which is 
all the more likely because followed by the words inquit, 
inquit mentioned already. These three arguments seem 
to point beyond doubt to Cicero as Augustine’s authority here. 
Moreover if the narrative about Hippocrates and Posidonius 
Stoicus in DCD V. 2 is referred to the treatise De Fato, to 
which it seems most natural to assign it, as Dambart and the 
editors of Cicero do, then I havenodoubt nobile illud 
commentum de figuli rota is also a fragment 
of the same. 

In DED V. 5 (p.:197.13) could oi I u d amo nee 
lis praedicatur. yquo ds) qu tidiam ismayoriemes 
horam, elegit qua Cum, MOE wcomic wen 
benet, unde filium mira bolhemepiecemerce 
be a fragment of Cicero’s De Fato? It isasubject kindred to 
what we find Augustine has taken from Cicero in chap. 2, and 
we, find in the case of the quos dam feat res ip: 
192.12) that Posidonius Stoicus said the position of the stars 
at the hour of conception had something to do with the subse- 
quent simultaneous suffering of twins. These considerations 
render it highly probable Cicero was the source, and that the 
statement was found by Augustine in the De Fato. 

In DCD V. 20 (p. 231.6) Cicero was evidently Augustine’s 
mind whenhe wrote Solent philosophi qui finem 
DOnNThUmMmaniinipsa virtute conmstreug nt 

feed). htiaeb ul am q wa n diam ye mip iis one 
me rie Ubi! yo 1uipit-ats. “in lWis eld ay wean 
quasidelicata quaedam regina considats 
ene aie ovigr tutes fam ulac os bi errant wr, 
From Cic. De Finn 2.21.69 sq. (as Dombart indicates) 


pace bDitiiter* on quwam,. hls: ‘ta bradare 
quam “GCliean thes) saline (co mm o-dre” ty ei puss 
dep imge re) So hem at.» Tucbve ba te-ors orga 


at dji.e bam tse 'C um 1p sos C ogi bane: pupcm.cum 
in sta Dal av olup ta tie m pu:lchereimocye sic 
tit veto tina tu) re gail i i pe oso Iaios Seiden - 
tem ;Goraesto esse virtutes wtanciluies 


23 


amiacont hil alinudparerent,) nullum suum 
Serie tum (du cetemto. nisi ut .voluptati 
Mie NaS. t Fa Te, Nit. 


For the subject-matter in general of DCD VIII. 2 and 3 
it is likely that Augustine had a fair general knowledge of 
philosophy from what he learned of it in the schools of his day. 
But one of the literary sources of his knowledge of philosophy 
in general (excluding Neo-platonism, of course) was no doubt 
Cicero, not only in his works which are extant but in those no 
longer extant, particularly the MHortensius. To this last 
named work we may attribute a large amount of his knowledge 
of philosophy, both because of the high appreciation he had 
of this work and because of what we know of its comprehen- 
sive scope. In Conf. 3. 4. 7 Augustine writes usitato 
time atscen di ordine perveneram” in 
i berm quemdam C Weve-co ns. S:* CHL tus 
Micha ms bere omnes Mirantur, pect us 
Mmomewe da.  o ¢€d liber ille ipsius ‘exhor - 
ithe mw Conmtimet ad philosophiam et 
TOcwetk tT ortensitus. Elle vero liber 
Mua ai fectum metm et ad te ipsum, 
DOM tne. mu tavit preces meas et. v.o'ta 
Hemet d emia rmé a) fectt alia; and again in 
Debeatavitar.4 postquam in schola rhetoris 
Pim iltom Cicénonis qui. hortensius 
MmeEcatwr accept, tanto amore philoso- 
Bite Su ccens us Sum wt statim ad é¢am 
Heceebramsterre meditareéer, Cicero himself 


tells us of the scope of the Hortensius : compare Tusc. 2.2.4 
IN-O;S" a u t em wniviets a6 —philos op hi ae 


Wetiimek a tori bibs! respon dimus. im, Hor = 
BeEMS! On and ibid.3.3.6.d¢e univers a philoso- 
phia quanto opere et expetenda esset 
Suc. owen da, Satis Ut ,anbitror, dictum 
estein Hortensio,; also De Finn. 1.1.2. In such a 
book there must have been a great amount of information on 
philosophy in general which Augustine made his own; and 


24 


that it contained more than philosophy we learn from 
DCD III. 15 where Augustine says he found in this dia- 
logue an account of the death of Romulus ang the 
OobseuTrattone solis.. We point out these tacts to 
show that this book ought to be given a very high place among 
the sources of Augustine. 


In DCD VIII. 4 either Cicero or Apuleius may have 
been Augustine’s source for the narrative of the travels of 
Blato. The divisionof sapientia imto activa “and 
contemplativa was probably taught in the schools, 
but for a literary source Augustine had Cicero, as we learn 
from the De Trin. 14.19.26 that he found the contem- 
plativa inthe end of the dialogue Hortensius ; and no 
doubt Cicero treated bothof the activa and contem- 
plativa. Augustine’s literary source for the three-fold 
division of the Platonic philosophia into moralis 
Naturalis and rationalis, “waseprepaply sCir, 
Acad. 1.5.19, though no doubt this was taught in the schools 
in the discussions on Platonism. 


In DCD VIII. 7 Augustine probably had Cicero in mind 
while writing notiones quas appellant éwots 
Compare Tusc. 1.24/57, De Finn 36:21, Acad. 2°7-22°-2.10..40, 


In DCD VIII. 13 Cicero is again the authority in regard 
to Plato banishing the poets out of his state. 


No doubt too Augustine must have remembered Cicero in 
BieGeur ba tio es t “en iim. qd uae. *G 6 aexc ec. catas 
aac vor in, DCD VIM. 17: 


Perhaps he had also Cicero in mind along with Apuleius 
nme DCD TX, 26° D).eum guid em st mim ume iom- 
fim Crediton em? 2 4. ste } a aR artic. 
praedileari) as sev.er at; ‘quite ds ip ser se 
SOlmws Gud Non possit sermonis (human 
quwavis lor atiome.’ vel modes leon pres 
hen di. ‘Compare Cic..N.D; 1.12.20. 


25 


In one place Augustine has followed Cicero as against 
Lactantius, namely, in DCD X. 3 (p 406.16) religentes, 
Mmedee set relieno wd teta per hi.beét ur: compare 
heWwe-26 72 cited ie ti reli otosi ex rel pg endo, 
which Lactantius denies : Div. Inst. 4.28.3. 

Peiapsalsoin DED. 6 sa crificiuwm res di- 
Viiateest ita swt hoc quwogue vocabulo 
Mipo@atiiniievecweres appellayerin t ‘Cicero 
was in Augustine’s thoughts: compare De Div. 2.10.25 and 
NSD: 2.58.47; 


3. AULUS GELLIUS. 


This author is mentioned only in one chapter in the DCD, 
faimMelvel Nerd (De72.0): ki lt brks quibus titulas 
Sst eNO eChitin, hele arum scribit*A. Gel - 
Lienert Che codon tins sa ml € oq uiiy et. “mul 
mito cetacwnd ae. scien tiae. In addition to 
this place I have been unable to find evidence in the first ten 
books of the City of God which would prove that Augustine 
in these books had specifically followed Gellius, except in one 
piace seh tam4, “quit tamen Gn Suis, lvttheris 
Chedunt. A tion em Meth ym n.aeu ms, no bi-l- 
PocmemMelem 4d tied ries tan. Culm 6s set dei e,c= 
Uscmece Medal © & Ce pi wim ded prhd mi. ‘dor So 
Smee sve rieaac CSG Pervycc tum. [tis not to 
be supposed for an instant that Augustine took this story from 
Herodotus, nor could he have got the given details from 
Cicero’s extant works, and we know of no lost work of Cicero 
in which the incident was given. Itseemsthen that Augustine 
took it from Gellius. 


4. JUSPINUS. 


Justinus is named only once in the DCD (IV. 6), and 
in this place extracts are made from the first book of his 
epitome of the Historiae Philippicae of Trogus Pompeius. 
There is no other place, I can find, in the first ten books of 
the City of God which need be assigned to Justinus. 


26 


5. LABEO. 


The Labeo to whom Augustine refers is M. Antistius 
Labeo the younger, the son of M. Antistius Labeo. The 
elder Labeo was a jurist and pupil of C. Trebatius Testa, 
Cicero’s young friend. ‘The younger Labeo flourished in the 
time of Augustine and was one of the two great jurists of 
that age—the other being C. Ateius Capito. ‘This Labeo was 
a very voluminous writer, and among other things wrote 
on Roman religion. No work of his is specified by Augustine 
and no direct citations given. He evidently wrote on theology 
and in this department was one of Augustine’s sources. 
Augustine refers to him for a distinction between deities: c um 
praecsertim  Labeo, <qarem (hu is cen ancords 
rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina 
biON.a/,.as DU mini bows) Sm as seis tae eran 
eultws -diversitate @istimenuat. (at mmcales 
deos propitiari cae dit a6 set sis ba omies 
supplicationibus asseriat, boomos autienn 
obs.equniis lactis 2tque 1000 a dis .cq nadia 
Sunt, wt tpsie ait, luda, Voom yw tv isle ri 
sternia (p.66.1). This is referred to again in DCD III. 25 
secundum Labeonis distinction em: com- 
pare also VIII. 13 (p. 340.34). In DCD II. 14 he tells us Labeo 
placed Plato among the semideos and semideos 
Zuvtiem her oi bus ante pomi.ts ‘sed at rosie 
inter numina conlocat. Perhaps through Labeo 
Augustine gained some knowledge of Plato. In DCD IX.19 we 
are told that Labeo isone of those who eosdem perhi b- 
ean: (ab salayirs) amiese tors” edit is) quto.Ssyad psa 
daemones nuncupant. Doubtless if we had the 
works of Labeo extant we should be able to find other traces 
of him used as a source by Augustine. See note p. 66.1. 


Oo; hIVY, 


Augustine mentions or identifies Livy only twice in the 
entire DCD,—II. 24 scribit Livius in connection 
with the civil wars of Sulla and Marius, and again inIII. 7 ut 


27 


Seribit Livius as authority for the survival of the 
shrine of Minerva amid the burning of Ilium by Fimbria; other- 
wise he never comes nearer to indicating him than by such a 
pinase aS a hit, Senpipitionmes.. Vet Livy is one of his 
primary sources. 


But though Augustine only in the two places given 
above refers to Livy by name, we can prove that he was 
familiar with the narrative of Livy, and had him often in mind 
in his historical references, and sometimes very closely follows 
the words of Livy and twice at least gives a verbatim quotation. 

In DCD I. 6 Augustine narrates the capture of 
Syracuse by M. Marcellus, and adds refertur eam 
Botts tle vicse ruitwram et ante €ius 
Samoutimem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. 
Of Augustine’s authorities Livy alone records this, (25.24.11.) 
That Livy was Augustine’s authority here we have still stronger 
uote nin the words, (p> 11.5) “ne. qi isi coup us 
liberum violaret, which are taken verbatim from 
Livy 25.25.7; and Livy is the only historian who mentions this 
edict of Marcellus. 

In the account of the taking of Tarentum by Fabius 
Maximus Cunctator Augustine has closely followed the narra- 
‘tive of Livy. This will be clearly seen by a comparison of 
the words of Augustine with those of Livy. The former 


Wes (Pere) Kabius, Larentinae wr bis 
Swensot. 4. Simulacnorum depraeddatiome 
Seaeabrsit in ui cise. auidatur, ~ Nam-cum e¢1 


Hegel sores Gisset quid de  signis 
Gdeortmaiquac multa capta fuerant fieri 
imberet, COntinentiam suam etiam 10 c- 
MidsowGondivit., OQOuaesivit €nim cuius 
muord isle e6:Sss.en tae t 9) Cum. 1 €.1)) mon solum 
Meme et anid a, Syeer mm eb i1.aim re mu mt 1 a:- 
ZoMmntr anmata Reeling wamus,’ inquit, 
‘Tarentinis deos iratos.’ Livy tells the 
same inthe words: Sed maiore animo generis 
clus’ pracda@aDstinagit’ Fabiws quam 


28 


Meat cedars. qui) th Cerro o'a mise ea ae 
Qta Gd Ot Metewars ie nis) ve Lilet imte,e mies sunvarc- 
de eden 3 d°é56'S> if ait 0's: “tau eeaeceuetcs 


relinqui iussit (27.16.8). Here Livy speaks of Fabius’ 
view of the booty, and Livy alone is the authority for the reply 
of Fabius to the scriba, and in his work alone Augustine 
could find the comparison of Marcellus and Fabius. 


In DCD I. 15 for the details of Regulus’ death Augustine 
probably knew Cicero, as shown in the note on this passage, 
but in addition to Cicero he had the narrative of Livy in the 
eighteenth book now lost. Probably if this book were extant 
we should find that he has followed closely the account of Livy, 
although he also knew Cicero’s remark concerning the happi- 
ness of Regulus on account of his virtues. 


For the narrative of Lucretia (DCD I. 19) Augustine had 
at least two sources. He had heard the story treated as a 
theme for a rhetorical exercise (quidam declamans 
ait, DCD I. 19), from which he gotthewords mirabile 
dictu, duo fuerunt et adulter acim gums 
admisit. Also he knew the account of Livy, as he seems 
to agree with Livy in mentioning only Collatinus and Brutus as 
present at the suicide of Lucretia. (Livy 1.58.) 


In DCD I. 23 Livy’s lost one hundred and fourteenth book 
was no doubt the authority for the opinion of Cato’s friends in 
regard to his suicide and for his advice to his son 


In DCD I. 30 and I. 31 Augustine’s knowledge of Scipio 
Nasica pontifex maximus was derived from Livy who gives the 
details recorded in Augustine. ‘The same Scipio is mentioned 
iO) LL oR. 


Also in the account of the institution of the, lhwdu 
Scaenici (DCD 1. 32) the words Of Augustine pio p alk 
bie Iimveto-s-07 est, as o.lis an tiem luda Ss (Grrcieme 
Ssibus adsueto, seem to be an echo ofithose of Livy 
nova mes: bellredso popu lo,. mam) ciren 
mode spectacilum fu erat Ayre 3-). 


29 


fe such <a <getieral“ statement. as. non aliquot 
nmioS, & OS to koma m ~conditam (ab .A trh,e- 
Een sas Mintavamenitir .éo,es So lonis 
(DCD II. 16) is to be referred to a specific literary source we 
may tnd such a (‘source in) Livy 3.31.8: missi leg ati 
PAS teal Sis is: i's hime bate. Bhn.c lait acs) lve ges 
So Lowis describe re . 

Livy is probably the primary source used in the reference 
to the activity of Numa Pompilius in establishing laws and 
ceremonial rites; though Augustine does not speak enough in 
detail to enable us to decide between Cicero and Livy here. 

Augustine begins DCD II. 17 with a remark taken from 
Sallust (whom he mentions) and then leaves Sallust and passes 
on to illustrate Sallust’s words by examples taken from Livy. 
He first mentions the raptas Sabinas, the source of 
which is found in Livy 1. 9. ‘This might have been taken also 
from Cic. De Re pub. 2.7.12, and Augustine’s language is too 
vague to resemble either; but it seems more likely that Livy 
is his source, as he is in the remainder of the chapter; though 
we shall find instances in which Augustine has made use of 
more than one authority inthe same chapter. See DCDIII. 9, 
Deer hel 164 Lil wo with the notes. 

Livy 2.2 is the source for the expulsion of Lucius Tarqui- 
nius Collatinus by Brutus, as also for the narrative of Camillus 
as given in the same chapter. 

Livy is the only authority, as Kuhlman points out (De 
veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo 
altero) tektio “Vesticiisa yp. (rt); -for -abs.ens etiam 
damnaretur. 

It has been proved in the note on p. 86.23 that Livy was 
the source for the account of Marius in DCD II. 23. Livy is 
mentioned by Augustine in the beginning of DCD II. 24, and 
we cannot doubt that the source of the other incidents in 
DED 24 and: L.s25 1s Livy: 

injine words, qi nord. allt qua draginta tres 
Baise Sengat io mle bee mie, olnugta, | PyaGie \t Fa My Sarcut 1 
Suet sme ¢ nia nites Nu me (DCD 111.9). it is, dificult 


30 


to say whether Augustine is following Livy or Eutropius, or 
both, as both give the same number of years. Augustine has 
not confined himself to only one authority in this chapter, as 
we know from the words triginta novem, which he 
found in Cicero. 

The lost fifty-ninth book of Livy was the source for the 
incident related in the opening lines of DCD III. 11. It is true 
that the same incident is referred to in Julius Obsequens 28, 
but Augustine has given details not found there, and which we 
may reasonably assign to the lost narrative of Livy. Livy may 
have been included by Augustine in the alii scriptores 
DCD III. 15 (p. 117.8) as Livy Florus and Eutropius speak of 
the tempest at the death of Romulus. 

In DCD III. 16 Livy seems to have been the source for 
Brutts consanguine us Pang wint) fis sie 
perhibetur;- compare iy Miitatnts Se eas 
Tarqurai a,’ sof Or ere eis Aine eaise ume Ggem): 

It is worth noting that in DCD., III. 16 (p. 121.7) while 
Augustine has Eutropius before him, he corrects the error of 
that author in regard to the praenomen of Valerius 
from Livy 2.8.9. | 

In DCD III. 17 and III. 18 Augustine has followed the 
narrative and order of Livy for a conspectus of the disasters 
of Rome from the death of the consul Valerius to the end of 
the first Punic war. For the details see the notes on this part. 
For some of the events referred to there is no extant authority, 
but it is shown in the notes that these may all be placed with 
good reason in the lost parts of Livy’s work which covered this 
period. In these two chapters (17 and 18) I have not been 
been able to find any trace of the use of any other historian 
but Livy. Healone was Augustine’s authority, and we con- 
clude from the manner in which he has followed the-order of 
Livy’s narrative that he had a copy of Livy before him for 
reference. This is not generally soin Augustine’s use of Livy, 
as he seems to have found him too long and full to consult 
continuously—often only having him in memory for his general 
narrative. 


31 


Kuhlmann admits only Livy and Florus as sources used 
by Augustine in DCD III. 19 and does not think Augustine 
used Eutropius here. With this I cannot agree. Kuhlmann 
says ((wOrcecitedsabovye. py ia) Ii ftiaiq ue) enim in | 
ei iG.al pete -Dws TQ); 20 €-Orm p; oO: nen dics 
Livius Augustine praecipuus fuit auctor, 
Peete rm eum nivior ws. adit bits... This: is 
true as far as it goes. But I have shown in the note p. 129. 1 
thatthe words tres modios anulorum aur e- 
Orum Cathaginem misit occur verbatim and 
in the same order in Eutropius (Brev. 3.11). One might say, 
however, that this is the only way of expressing in Latin ‘‘ he 
sent three modii of gold rings to Carthage.” Even supposing 
two different authors independently of each other, expressed 
the same thing by the same words in the same order, yet for 
the amount of rings sent Eutropius seems to be the sole 
authority. Kulimanm gsays: (p)97 ) > Act qave. ~'quso.d 
Pee siti Nei Sos tes Im Old OS ami) oF um ,2’ 
Pbvaeuese ah ferme Sup mids nt eS). mo dot o's?) °C a. r- 
PNtaseine ke Fes Sie" sm iSs 0'Se “€ yard, i-d t,t n.o'% 
Mm ioniweyel desert ure dhi's Cine pa tia. eis se. ‘gq .ivam 
ieee Amt SS tin. tm) er i Lai video: pen dicire> ea 
Gewvenatsa nie se tu rs This might beso, if Livy had 
written as Kuhlmann has cited him; though even thus it seems 
to be more natural to suppose he is using Eutropius as his 
authority. But Kuhlmann has omitted dimidium before 
Supra tres modios in Livy 23:12:17; which renders 
it the more improbable that Livy was Augustine’s authority. 
Again, if Augustine were following Livy here, it is likely he 
would have taken notice of the dimidium supra 
mcr MONE OS Cre even Supra, tres. mio dios, 
as it is evidently by no means Augustine’s purpose to minimise 
the disasters of Rome. On the contrary he gives details to 
show the greatness of the disasters and thus heighten the effect 
of his own argument. For example in this chapter he uses 
me words of Florus|) simulior victo fuerit ille 
qui vicit (p. 128.19); and in the battle of Cannae he 


32 


says the slaughter was so great that Hannibal caede 
Sia tia La sepa rca im's’s is is:er pie hl bie tn ( pore S 
29, not found in Livy); and so great was the want of soldiers 
after this defeat that tothe servitia (p. 129.9) he adds 
the reos facinorum (p. 129.8—not found in Florus 
or Eutropius). A similar tendency may be noticed in the vel 
nono (p. 130.10) and in the dubious addition of nam 
etiam sworum, eadatyerb us sas nf Oma bars 
pasta perhibetur (p. 130.13). Another objection 
to Livian authority here seems to me to be found in the state- 
ment of Livy immediately following the dimidium 
Supra tres modios), to the effect that‘one modaiuis 
Was nearer thetruth ; F ama temnit;. quae wp re- 
Piloruviero; est; hia it apeansef apiss jer ameordimor 
Even if Augustine wished to give the higher number, he could 
hardly in justice have passed over this express declaration 
that the smaller number was nearer the truth. 


Thus in DCD III. r9 Augustine no longer adheres to the 
work of Livy alone, but passes over to Florus whom he in some 
respects closely follows for the second Punic war. His use of 
Florus here will be noticed in its place. Once also he has 
adopted the account and followed the words of Eutropius. 
Yet Augustine proves from his own account that, though he 
has called to his service Florus and Eutropius in chapter 109, 
he was acquainted with Livy’s history of the second Punic war. 
He supplemented or corrected Florus whom he had before him 
from his recollection of the account of Livy. The following 
words deserve note:—Denique tanta militum 
PLO pia iSec uta Gest ‘at, Ro nieawy eres eas 
Cini fun) “(pao porsitia— “Lay p 1m tate saehos ia. 
eLent, Se LV i bia ibe © tate, dicmeamiemenscee 
Dervis: ..ac ma dietfuerunt. Diet racstauss ame 
templis. Here Augustine follows Florus (Epit. 1.22.23) 
as far as the words are concerned, but Livy for the matter. He 
had the narrative of Livy in his mind and that of Florus before 
his eyes. He unites both, giving the preference to Livy. 


33 


In the next chapter (III. 20) Augustine has departed more 
from Florus and returned to Livy. In the words missi 
Ineronarta oad. “Elva gy maebrarle im 31.0040 6. Co n tiem ‘patd 
Carthasine mm) perpunt | hehas followed Livy who 
gives the double embassy (21.9.3). Florus gives only a single 
mission (Epit. 1.22.7). Livy again was his only authority for 
OECtUEd WON P (Dat Zo no). pace Livy, 20.15.53) OC t.a v0 
iMmemse Cham COcptuam OppPughnari captum 
Saunt im Guida im js Crips ere. Another point 
of contact between Augustine’s narrative and that of Livy has 
been pointed out by Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in 
Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis p. 
12) namely, that both Augustine and Livy call Saguntum 
Civitas sO pmbemtirs Sima ~ (Augustine p. 130.8, 
Livy 21.7.2). 

ing DED Til 25 Augustine returns to Livy as: his sole 
authority. He opens the chapter with a notice of Sallust’s 
statement about the morality and peace of Rome between the 
second and third Punic wars. But for the historical facts 
there is no trace of any other historian except Livy, to whom he 
has adhered closely, even quoting his words. Compare nullo 
MME Met Ok Se Ca prt Usd esider io sand ne 
Siem sok £ UO) i nein ora ta ‘pra thria: fun us 
inbemiet with Livy 38:53.6. sine desi deri o *urb is 
PiGceives hums «iS Wb (ine “One Tata’ ‘patria 
fieret. There is also a striking resemblance between the 
words of Augustine in thischapter: Asiatica luxuria 
RO mam’ om 1 i MO Sate”  wPsee Oure! Hit ehp S 1) ta. 
icin ce enkikm "pm mum ibe cti ae rati et pre- 
PEt Staaecularvisa perhi bien tur; tunic 
Pdwe tae Glm VcO nV tv isa pSaltriae eit aliva 
ieee liosia “mie qui tia,’ and those of ’ Livy: Lux- 
liititace cum pee @timae som too ab ¢ x ef 


ComiMeeAeSirctiie O:-elnreye © L.a pith Seu irbe'm ies'ts 
aia Prim iam, “Neiet/os a elgiateo.s't! "ves trem 
Seema eum. ji * pire to's a mis, plagulas et 


Hu piuer Xabi hivaeaCt um GiUhancwmat Ui mao n i fiiciae 


34 


sup pel leet ris thiarbie bianit a f em-ome pod a 
€ t. a b.a'eleis: Ro maim: | ade. xem wane Pa pee 
psaltra aes aim bu cis tria€ qae> Sete ceomr- 
valiacalia ludorum obbéectamenta saddiita 
e_mrunler Sea (ivy 39.6.7.). 

The reference to the massacre of Romans by the order of 
Mithridates DCD III. 22 is too vague to assign with certainty 
to Livy. 

DCD III. 24 is to be referred to the lost sixty-first book 
of Livy. Florus cannot be the authority, as there are details 
given which are wanting in that author, namely L. Opimius 
io ..tfhta “mailva hom ia Mm <0 Ge id ics's ee. cpie te 
hibetur,; and haec “emim “pactiio me avemdscan 
PraecessS erat, and Occisus est cam. [ibeiis 
Nace cso aul yacss "en Sl caarase 


To the same lost book of Livy we must referthe aedes 
Concordia ae facta est of ep cite ee 
note p. 136. 25. 

Perhaps, as pointed out in the note on p. 138.9, the ex 
PauUcissimis, “hoc est: mijn ss giacacmerstepn- 
tuaginta, ecladiatorab sof DEDAM: chaste 
be referred to the lost ninety-fifth book of Livy. It is not a 
fatal objection to this that Epit. 95 gives quattuor et 
S.eoput tae lenet tan 

Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in Augustini de 
civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis, p. 19) would also 
refer to Livy the differences between Augustine’s narrative in 
DCD Ill: 27 and that-of Florus, viz. Bae b rus et) (Nite 
fd 10° TiS AEM /C10° AyriacGsEA, AS: pid WeaSetS ene one nae 
Diss 1nte ride nt. cand 4 n. ispisHfalisee sarin 
Miarraid (4076 LS: ocr et Te UO f-@7 1 eeboa, oto 
quibus salutantd bas, dex? e ram a proma 
gere noluisset._ Perhaps these differences do neces- 
sitate the introduction of another authority, which, of course, 
would be Livy. This passage is more fully treated under 
Florus. 


35 


Livy is also the authority for the prodigies of DCD III. 31 
as shown in the notes. 


In DCD IV. 20, for Mucius, Curtius and the Decii, Livy 
must be posited as the source, as Eutropius does not give these 
details, and Florus does not mention Curtius, while Livy gives 
them all. 


It is impossible in DCD IV. 23 to say whether Augustine 
got deae (hel ieita to) -p ors t tot (Ro ma: 10's 
Hoowenpes Liemlius “aedem Constitwit 
in Varro, or in the lost forty-eighth book of Livy, the epitome 
of which tells of Lucullus’ imprisonment by the tribunes and 
his subsequent campaigns in Spain. 


In DCD V. 18 Augustine has followed three different 
authorities Livy, Florus and Eutropius, though Kuhlmann 
(work cited above p. 6) admits only Livy, and Eutropius: for 
the use of Florus here see note p. 227. 5. In the first part of 
the chapter Livy is the authority for the death of the sons of 
Brutus by their father’s order, also that of Torquatus’ son, 
for Furius Camillus, Mucius, Curtius and Marcus Pulvillus. In 
connection with the last Augustine writes dedicans 
mediem hoe vis ©lun omits? Miner vy acy (pi 226. 
1o) and Livy Iovis aedes (2.8.6), and Kuhlmann 
remarks (work cited above p. 6) that Augustine ex sua 
Pomme cocndtionme Livi werbis i tlovis 
Hcdees) earded tte “lumens Mimic r va é,’— mam 
Bowes temp lam: lex dex tral et .simistra 
Pimie Wumonis et. Minervae ceellam. ha- 
pease onublio-vilorum- temporum viro 
Guctoe Won notum €rat. This seems to be the 
last use of Livy as an authority by Augustine in the first ten 
books of the City of God. There is, so far as I know, no pas- 
sage in books VI, VII, VIII, IX or X in which there is any 
trace of Livy. Thus the employment of this author as a 
source is limited to the first of the two sections (I-V and VI- 
X), of the first part of the DCD (I-X). 


36 


7. PLATO. 


This author is mentioned often by Augustine, for which 
see Dombart’s index. Little need be said about Plato as a 
source, for it will be shown in the thesis on Augustine’s knowl- 
edge of Greek that he did not know Plato in the original. 
His knowledge of Plato was gained from the philosophic dis- 
cussions in the schools of his day and especially from Neo- 
platonism. He had some Latin versions of parts of Plato’s 
writings, such as those made by Cicero. 

Cicero’s works in general and those of Apuleius added to 
his store of knowledge of Plato. In reading the City of God 
we find after all a very limited use of Plato, though Augustine 
speaks highly of him. The references (always in Latin 
versions) are not frequent nor specially significant, as 
they usually are either commonplaces or mere ¢7nferences, or 
if specific, come entirely through Cicero or Apuleius. Possibly 
he got some knowledge of Plato from the De Philo- 
sophia of Varro which he knew (DCD XIX 1-3). 


§. PLINIUS: 


Pliny the elder is mentioned by name in the DCD XV. 9, 
XV. 12; but in the first ten books the only use of Pliny seems 
fo. = be VIL» m5: (pia 343. = 18) Sie-rup. erat mb uNss, et 
etiam. deposit a fam C24.) Sem-e Cc tuine ms Gec- 
ponere atque. int tuyemtam. redir es pes 
hi bent ur, if indeed it is necessary ito find “awiiterany 
source for so common a phenomenon which Augustine must 
have observed for himself. See note on p. 343. 18. 


9g, ELOLINUS: 


Augustine’s relation to Plotinus,which is not so marked in 
the DCD as in some other works, has been sufficiently worked 
out by others, especially by Grandgeorge and Loesche. All the 
references to Plotinus occurring in the DCD are given by 
Dombart, except in X. 2 which I have supplied. See note to 
p. 404. 18. Perhaps Augustine had Plotinus in mind also in 
DED V. 11, See note p.. 210,34: 


37 


10. POMPONIUS. 


A certain Pomponius is mentioned in DCD IV. 16: ut 
ait Pomponius, in connection with the explanation 
of the deity Murcia, It is impossible to say which Pomponius 


this was, and probably Augustine did not know him at first hand, 
but found him mentioned in the work of Varro treating 
of Murcia. 


TRERORPHY RY. 


There is no doubt that Porphyry is one of the Neo- 
platonists whom Augustine informs us in his Confessions he 
read throughthe Latin version of Victorinus. Porphyry is the 
chief literary source for the roth book of the DCD. Augustine 
mentions him in DCD VII. 25 and in VIII. 12. But in book 
X there is frequent and extensive use of him; see X. 9, X. 
Ope Res ere NO ye keh OT, OO Be OX Toa 26, Ek, (28; Xe 29, 
Ms 30, %. 32) Porphyry's epistula ad Ame bontem 
iSMementioned in) xX. ts cum iad Anebonatem 
SC pasiiyt MuAveso spit itiom > “they ide: eon ie Ssotl 
itipmiiaieu « 202° Gq uo stade. Tevonwe ssia. anima e 
scripsit and X. 32. The fragments or these found in this 
part of Augustine are collected in my notes on this book, and 
in the caseof the De regressu animae, I think for the first time. 
In addition to these works of Porphyry we have evidence in 
DCD VII 25 and from Euseb. Praep. Evang. 3. 11 that Augus- 
tine also used Porphyry’s zepi dyadpatwv. See note p. 306. 23. 
In DCD X. 21 we have reason to believe from the evidence of 
Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4. 23 that the dicit bonum 
deumvel geniumnon venirein hominem 
Dishe wiisaloness) forest) Canttie *p,lacatu's is .a 
fragment of the zepi rHs ék Aoyiwy didocodias—a work which 
Augustine mentions under its Greek title and gives large extracts 
from a Latin version in DCD XIX. 23. ‘To this same 
source Wolff (Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda 
librorum reliquiae. p. 146) would also refer the fragment in 


38 


DCD X. 26 (p. 442. 14). Perhaps the literary source of ut 
ipsé scribis (DCD X. 27. -p. 444. 32) in regard to 
Christ’s being acknowledged as divine by the oracles of the 
heathen may have been the xara ypiortavav of Porpyhry : also 
Hune autem Chris tum (esse “nowivered as. 
Com Hem nis . en im semis —pirie pitrer ) Velo prais 
ex femina accieptum) jet) proper veru cis 


opprobrium (BCD G28): 


12. SALLUST. 


Sallust was the standard historian taught in the schools 
in the days of Augustine, compare DCD III. 17:neque 


emim Sraviws ~vel~ “era vitowra )aien meus 
auc tori bus eoOT um) Sete ssiie ete ome 
mult um. im pares; -q wibuse teamten Yevdas 


eendis ferilipsi<elaboeravrerumat et wrlnots 
suo's -<laborare coum pel lant. 2O%un. a ut em 
suSCEeEn Sent, quando ‘me verrene., Simca 
dicerém quod Sallustius art? Augustmes 
use of Sallust as an authority presents no difficulty 
whatever. His pessimistic description of the times of which 
he wrote and his severe censures on the depraved morals of 
Rome 4efore the introduction of Christianity rendered him a use- 
ful instrument for Augustine to turn against his own country- 
men. Augustine nowhere mentions the historian Tacitus, 
though it is hard to see how he could have failed to know 
about him. But Tacitus’ work was not so well adapted to 
his purpose, as the gloomy pictures painted by Tacitus 
belong to times after the introduction of Christianity. It is 
-Strange that Augustine, though he has not made so extensive 
a use of Sallust as of Livy, mentions the former nearly always 
by name and quotes him verbatim, while he only twice refers 
to Livy by name, and only twice seems to use the exact words 
of Livy. The reason of this is probably to be found,in the 
fact that the works of Livy were too-large and cumbrous for 
continuous use. Kuhlmann (work cited above p. 2) has tabu- 


39 


lated the instances of Augustine’s use of Sallust’s Catiline and | 
Histories. Augustine shows no trace of any use of the Jug- 


urtha. 
13. SENECA 


Lucius Annaeus Seneca is twice mentioned by name 
imsthe OCD. In. Voce efive: verses. sate cited from Ep. 
107—reference given by Dombart. Here Augustine 
quotes irom. memory: Annmaci Senecae sunt, 
Meso ieadlOiGee hid: - View Svs... Again: in, VI. 10 
Bud Vis tr-Augustine. quotes irom ¢€oO ,libro quem 
Coiatshia aS Upe ds) hit talOn.e'S .¢ Oo n-diad it. (p.267.9): 


Apart from these two references there is no use of Seneca 
elsewhere in the entire DCD. 


14. LERTULLIAN 


With the writings and views of his fellow-countryman 
Augustine was familar. He mentions him in Ep. rgo. 4. 14, 
De Haeres. 86, Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum 2. 9. 
22, De tGenesi-ad lit 25 and) 26. Me bono viduitatis, 4. 6:5 5. 7, 
De anima et eius origine 2. 5. 9. In the DCD Augustine 
mentions him by name only once viz:in VII 1, quod face- 
Bis dete e.t Pall Tivami.s . £0 Fta ss e.%. Gam 
iets oda 1 eli cmn tug wt bul bai, oti que 
Senecio ep fr O11 - aoand-ive-an tucr-o.. Outside this 
there is nothing from Tertullian in the DCD. 

in DCD. stor the vulgare prover bi 1am: 
Peptide Cert ties Ca Sa Christ ian t os'unt 
it is true the nearest approachvis in Tertullian, (see note p. 55. 
33,) but it is not likely that for the above words Augustine had 
in mind any specific literary source; no doubt he had heard 
the expression, as we would infer from Vulgare pro- 
verbium. Nor is Tertullian required as the source of 
Augustine’s knowledge for Caelesti virgini in 
Dee 4 (pi 57. tl) Vet ne is.of Service tous here.as we 
learn from him that this deity was peculiarly African, hence the 
African Augustine would naturally be acquainted with the rites 
Q@athe GCaeclestin var 9 '0.: 


4o 


15. VARRO 


The writings of Marcus Terentius Varro are the main 
literary source for the fourth, sixth and seventh books. 
Augustine used him particularly for Roman mythological 
religion, the classes names and relations of the gods and 
goddesses to one another, their individual functions, their re- 
spective rites and their acts of shame. Sometimes, but not fre- 
quently, he employs him for Roman history. In DCD IV, 23 
Francken has shown that Varro was Augustine's authority for 
the story of the refusal of the three gods Mars, Terminus, and 
Iuventas to give place to Jupiter when Tarquinius was building 
the Capitol. Here in opposition to Livy and other authorities 
Jupiter is represented as encountering three-fold opposition. 

Francken (FKragmenta M. Ter. Varronis quae inveniuntur in 
libris S. Augustini de civitate Dei. Lugduni-Batavorum 1836), 
Krahner (Varronis Curio de Cultu Deorum. Neobrandenburg, 
1851), Liittgert (Theologumena Varroniana a S. Augustino in 
iudicium vocata. Sorau, 1859), Schwarz (De Varronis apud sanc- 
tos patres vestigiis. In Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 
Supplementband 16; Leipzig, 1888. p. 407-499) and Agahd 
(Quaestiones Varronianae. In Jahrbiicher fiir classische 
Philologie. Supplementband 24; Leipzig, 1898, p. 5-220 and 
367-368) have so carefully collected and fully annotated the 
fragments of Varro taken from the City of God, that little 
more can be said. The work of these scholars is of very 
different merit. That of Liittgert is of littlke or no conse- 
quence, piis magis quam doctis homini- 
bus Sta programma ta 1¢onscri pstsseoqa- 
detur, as Schwarz says (work given above, p. 438), and 
that of Krahner comes next in unimportance. Francken’s 
work is superior to both of these: and Schwarz and Agahd 
are the most recent and complete authorities. 

To the work of these editors of the fragments of Varro I 
would however add the following: In DCD IV. to (p. 159. 
20) Augustine writes Cui etiam Phoenices do- 
num dabant de prostitutione filiarum 
antequam eas iungerent viris. Varro is ad- 


41 


mittedely Augustine’s authority throughout this chapter and 
the succeeding. This raises a presumption in favor of Varronian 
source for the above cited words. Moreover, when Varro 
was treating of Venus what would be more natural for him 
than to add the piece of information about the practices of 
the Phoenicians in regard to Venus? It is all the more likely 
that Varro gave this detail about Venus when we learn from 
DCD VII. 19 some such details concerning the Poeni and 
Galli in their worship of Saturnus: dicit a quibus- 
dumepuve tos, ei, sold tos; inmem-ol.ari sic ut a 
Poe nist, 2) G@.Usb U Sadjarm!) "et iam) miathor e's 
Secu tra G allis) and in DCD: Vil..3540 uiord. ge mus 
Guinvena et ONS. <1. Cie ty Nar Oia: Pe fS.i.sr die 1t 
aia tum.) in, DCD IV. 31 (p. 86.24), Varro. evidently 
knew something of the customs of Jewish worship, because 
there he adduces the example of the Jews to prove the truth 
of his assertion that if the custom of the ancient Romans, of 
worshipping the gods sine sim ulacro, had remained, 
such worship would have continued purer. In DCD VII. 28 
iin Gee taal mi GS) a mot hie ave um ino; bil i-ay omby.s\- 
themida: ine “SU Poet! Ou er vibe O45 1.6. sin-tie.nyp ne = 
tatur—showing Varro knew the mysteriaof the 
Samothracians, 

The sum of the probabilities is therefore as follows: — 

(t) Varro is admittedly the sole source of all traceable 
information about deities given in this chapter. 

(2) Itis natural that Varro should write this passage as 
an illustration of the worship of Venus in a non-Roman cult, 
just as it was his habit to give analogous illustrations for the 
worship of the deities in non-Roman cults, as shown above. 

(3) There is no other source used by Augustine in the 
DCD, or elsewhere, so far as I know, where this particular 
information could have been found. 


B. SOURCES NOT MENTIONED BY AUGUSTINE. 


In addition to the authors whom Augustine mentions as 
having been used by him there are some others used by him 


42 


whose names he passes over in silence. Some of these we are 
able to detect by the language or matter which Augustine has 
borrowed from them. 


tr IPEORUS: 


Chief among such is Florus with whom he was quite 
familiar. He uses Florus as a historical source, either alone 
as a principal source, or as coérdinate or subordinate to Livy, 
Eutropius and Cicero. 


Compare the words in DCD III. 19 similior victo 
fuerit iihe. qui” viert with Klorus? Epi id 225s 
Simi tor victo'stt.populusari teria went 
and the words preceding this quotation, qui non tam 
miarr ariel bella R om ‘a neat gaia a Re an at a 
im pen iim “tawd are ins tetw er uate evidently, 
are intended to describe the work of Florus. Compare arma 
define runt de tr.acc tas 7s ime temp aise: 
r29. 12) with Florus Epit! 1) 22) 23° a © mao nom em am oe 
detracta sunt ‘tem plirs. “Thus*a comparisonser 
the language of both authors proves to us that Augustine had 
the very words of Florus before him here. 


In the account of Hannibal’s command to show mercy at 
Cannae, where Augustine writes tanta inimicorum 


cacde Satiatus parci“1ussissie per hi b e= 
tur he has followed Florus (Epit. 1. 22. 17) who is the only 
authority for this statement: itaque duo maximi 
Swe rCre as "Caest. 4 de nh.o S$ ti. m- satire ta, team 
come.¢ “hoatn tba) Orci t tviliti swos + par ce 
feast O 2: 


Again in DCD III. 14 compare utriusque com- 


Mi Mo tl oO sCivita tis... .. ter@em 1 nig. hee 
atque conde fitatribus with Florus “Bpit. cre 
wieeoe, “Co mmin werent wr sac tregemenis 


hine @tqt.e“1nid.e, fratrib as. ahisseenseeye 
dence enough that Augustine followed Florus for the fight 
between the Horatii and the Curiatii. 


43 


But the indebtedness of Augustine to Florus is not confined 
to isolated expressions or short quotations, as will be seen by 
comparing DCD III. 27 (p. 139. 17) with Florus Epit. 2. 9. 14. 


Thevormer reads; icia-pat -O-c.tavii consulis 
Matwene tit nine TOs tf ts. Cia esa r.es- a F41m- 
Digit edeoumM i hase ot rt cd d-a femctur Sais, d-u.o 
Cameco edict Cube ttle i Sh lm COS pe ct, u 
MOA. ta © nt un, Baebiw set -N. um 1 - 
Poms une Oo bracti Sparsis. vis.ceri bus 
MimMcusintve not (cat ums Nawst oOo ven eno se 
Mmaniois: Ininmieorunm sSubtraheret, Meruwla 
Bisee mm Diva tics) Spr ae.c isis: ivyenis lov 
Pieiniesro Sdn oui me. litare t., Im ip si-us 
autem Marii oculis continuo ferieban- 
Siig uchiws, Sa litantib us dexteram  por- 
mite e fe. Ole t'S:s-ert. 


The latter (in Rossbach’s text): Octavi consulis 
Ce eUGee Oe teOrs, ties 6 x°p.O nat Ur. A mt ont 
Comsalanis in(Mariipsius mensis. Caesar 
Etat Deivid. eh) Pie Med tl Dus: dom: oor Ms (sth 
Dieter el Ceinit Ut. Cmasis pid ter set. filaws 
Pie Het Oend ) tier ach fer ues. aS pect. Bae - 
Dene ser IN Ut tor tum pre tr me di wm. forum 
Mites stiva ks ete, Carmi r he wm... Cat |.ws-s-e 
heomtsei aus tu ludibrio hos tiuwm «xem rt. 
Merita tlamem Dialis*in Capitelio Lovis 
ipsius One wleg:S: = Veer a. fom Conaorrne. | orre- 
Mpc Hote. AD Clar dus I pso. veidien te Mario 
Gomross us: €St quia fatalem iflam sci- 
[cere inti non porme xerat salut ant. 

One cannot doubt that Augustine had Florus as his 
authority here, though he differs from him in omitting the 
death of Antonius, but still more in the last part where Augus- 
tine has heightened the effect by stating that those were put 
todeath (feriebantur), whose salutation Marius was 
unwilling to grace by stretching out his right hand. On the 


44 


contrary his authority records here only the death of one such, 
Ancharius, and that because he had not reached out his hand 
at Marius’ salutation. 


Kuhlmann is perhaps right in suggesting that the diffe- 
rences between Augustine and Florus demand the use of another 
historian. The points of difference pointed out by Kuhlmann 
are two: Bate bi us “et “Nem to rd ws (si pla asa 
yVIsSceribus interinemt, “and that already men- 
tioned about Ancharius. Kuhlmann says of these (work cited 
above p. 19) Augustinus €x 1istqtae Wiviico 
becto, Memoria “tiene ret smalhiiy ey icdrecuier 
addidisse. He does not take notice of Augustine’s 
omission of the death of Antonius. 


Florus seems to have been Augustine’s authority also in 
DCD, Ill. .28. Compare. especially “ob,s es So; lest dram 
Sentatu ‘die ya pis:a Curl ay staan quiyaime \Glersc an 
cere producebantur ad @ladium., owth 
Florus EXpit: 2.9: 205-0 Dis-e'S Ss aque, eC Ur dna, “Stince vee 
SenatUu qQtast de Carcene Vq Utes tise 
rentur educti. Augustine’s point of view as well as 
his words here so strongly resemble those of Florus that we 
must suppose he had Florus in mind. 


Who will doubt that the words donec Sullae 
SUP Pere tur Siumen dos sess e alavquos, vr 
Werte wrt se S Sen t aq ud bis, pro ss e nit sia peer 
fare. qui vicerant are ja, reproduction of Morus 
Epil; 2.69. 25. don ec ad monje nite Ff wit dico, wi 
Wem Coed IG. O'S. /dve bree. “Wit y 648 Suet. «pu coe oes 
iMiep-e ra rwen tf The, account of, the ta he lay pigs 
(p..i40.. 27) and duo mili‘a (p. mo. 30) \1s evidently 
taken from this same place. 

We see also from a comparison of p. 141. 3-10 with Florus 
Epit. 2. 9. 26-28 that the former was written from the latter: 
Ovnsemediam  e ntam <s-n-e 4 erro, Magna nate 
iv he Soda rk p we nun t,. i nm amiss bh oui es 
hOminem Vvivum,- quam. be St ajeqys.olvemet 


45 


iiccerpere cadaver .a biectum: : A liuis 
eulhis eff ossis et partiiculatim me m - 
Bois, asm pita tis, ta Pam tis cc ruciatib uss 
OkG@ic avel Veer Csi vee-lo pio tims, Gia mori. coa-c- 
PS uneIS.t. spor Dba Sita eavey “S.unt set 1.2m, t-a m= 
Apis bila ce acmare daa, 1,0 bx les civ i ta tes; 


Mena vee TOV Glib (news ems dwet iu b é.re- 
HGmeSte tOta LUuSSa est trudicari (Augustine). 


Bae bium, Sine. ferro “ratu.- fterarwm 
Hie Gana nas: bamecimatum, Marium, duci's 
(Mstessaratrem - apud Catulivsepurchrum 
ocwlts effosis, Manibus cruribusque 
Clvmactis Servatum, aliquandiu “wt per 
Mmewia i em bra mM Ore retur. Possis sin- 
ctor KNOminum ferre poenas; m un t- 
Gmpia  taliaeée splrendidissima sub hasta 
Wemierumt: opoletium Interamnium Prae- 
Meste Laloren tia. Nam Sulmonem ywetaws 
oppidum socium atque amicum—facinus 
Midi nim =-— hon €xpugnat aut obsidet 
Mime wmbse Helis Sled. quo mo.d.o) morte ~d-a.m - 
Dati del twbentucs “sie damnatam (Civ i- 
Poe mpmeunsis dt > 1 Wives edie l.éor i... (Plorus) 


We thus see how closely Augustine has followed the 
language and the sentiment of Florus. Only Augustine is more 
general and indefinite, omitting the names of the victimised 
persons and cities (giving general words instead, like quen- 
caamip sacl Wiss ag Wale dams Civd tates: eu n a) 
— Florus being more specific. 


As will be seen from the note on p. 227. 5 Augustine had 
evidently Florus before him in addition to Eutropius in the 
account of Quintius Cincinnatus, DCD V. 18. 


In DCD V. 22 Eutropius is the authority used by Augus- 
tine, yet in this chapter he has either made a slip about the 
numbers given by Eutropius or has consciously set him aside 
and taken Florus Epit. 1, 21, 1 forthe statement bellum 


46 


Punicumostecun dum 2s) pen an miors. ae- 
cem. et octo Roman as~ Vires? ex teminay it 
(p: 234. £3). 


Augustine probably included Florus in the alii scri p- 
tores Corum defection? solkis vad-dtamcet 
etiam swbitam tem pies tia te uv, ~ DCD iin. 
(p. 127.8); and perhaps-also “dem, an'n bi is Caip it o- 
lium fabricantem (p. 118. 8) is taken from Florus 
(Epit. ta. 7) d€ aman ubids ea p tag man bam 
templum erexit: compare however Livy. 55. 7- 

In DCD III. 20 Florus has been used as a secondary 
authority when Augustine writes octavo vel nono a 
Poen 1s mense deletacesits “Seenetep.1%6-11e- 

In DCD IV. 5 Florus (Epit. 2. 8. 3) is perhaps Augus- 
tine’s authority for writing paucissimi gladia- 
tores in. Cam panita. dre cmid.o 6 tinesivem cess 

tres duces habwerunt. Uhisus qlitie 
more likely if Florus is Augustine’s authority for the epitome 
of the events of Roman history found in DCD III. 26. 

All these ascertainable uses of Florus by Augustine are 

found in the third, fourth and fifth books of the City of God. 


2.. KUTROPIVS: 


That the work of this epitomiser was well known to Augus- 
tine we have abundant evidence. Eutropius is used much as 
Florus is, but somewhat more as an independent source, even 
to the extent of preferring some of his statements to those 
both of Livy and Florus. 

For similarity of language between the two authors com- 
pate DCD. Ill 15 ino p91 do: “Du seutie thio mae 
Wi Cri Oo Giaitt tivo doecim . witb em fg pia aoe 
Ditvatam Witam quietus, big b uit) ebeeam 
uxore consenuit, whichis almost a quotation from 
Kutropius, (Brev. 1. 11):. Tusculum sey-comeu list 
Qiqevci v1 ta's non Lon e.e ab: arabe esr arene 
ibi per quattuaordecim a2 a.osspt tiedtms 


cum uxore consenuit, In addition to the verbal 


47 


relationship between these two extracts, Eutropius has been 
also Augustine’s only authority for two statements given: 
Seatewor@decim. “faunas and -cum uxo Tre 
eons € nui t. 

Specially noteworthy is the rememblance between DCD 
Vieeieo ip. 220.21), GWOn tam. sic uit) Kom ands. ¢ um 
femere VoOLentibus. Tes pondissie f.ert ur; 
wasted (Quam Afris Seryierat; .d i gn i t:a- 
PomrckbnG MoOme sti Civis habe t.é.non pos sie t, 
and Eutropius (Brev. 2.25) offerentibus Romanis 
Hemera kh © Mi a.e tenet. ent me oavit- Se in ea 
Mme wma nS ti mM. th G Usa pos tguam Afri-s 
Sewvwvetat), dion it at em eOnne Site SC uiv: IS 
habere non posset. Augustine had Eutropius before 
his eyes while writing this passage. 

As Eutropius has been Augustine’s authority in the latter 
half of DCD III. 15, so no doubt he includes him among the 
Pitt serip torres (pp. 11778), For the.manner: of the 
death of Numa Pompilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Pris- 
cus and Servius Tullius in this same chapter the authority 
is also Eutropius. 

Augustine has also chosen to follow this epitome in oppo- 
sition to better sources in the statement of the duration of the 
kingship at Rome—per ducentos ferme et 
ecw rae rita thes an nmos  (p.2 119.8), though 
Eutropius (Brev. 1.8.3)does not give anything corresponding to 
ferme of Augustine. 

The same authority may be traced in the list of consuls of 
the year subsequent to the expulsion of the kings, DCD III. 16, 
though Augustine has here corrected the praenomen of 
Valerius—given Lucius by Eutropius Brev. 1. 9. 4—to 
Publius on theauthority of Livy (2. 8. 9), while in DCD 
V.18 he has preserved theerror of Eutropius. 

I have already shown (p.31), asopposed to the view of 
Kuhlmann, that I do not regard tres modios antu- 
borum aureoritm Carthaginem misit (DCD 
III. 1g) as amere accident, and written independently of Eutro- 


48 


pius; and that Augustine has not merely reproduced the words 
of Eutropius, but has followed him as sole authority for tres 
modios. 


Eutropius seems to have been the source also af DCD 
PV. 209; | 

There is no doubt whatever about the authority for the 
latter part of DCD V.18. The remarkable similarity of 
language here between Eutropius (Brey. 2. 25) and Augustine 
(p. 226. 21) cannot be explained otherwise than as a clear case 
of the dependence of Augustine on Eutropius. 


More evidence, not from similarity of language, but from 
agreement in subject matter, is found in the words L. V ale- 
Fim qui tn. su o-def unc tus) est com sin ian 
(p. 227.2). Here Augustine has followed Eutropius (Brev. 1. 
11.4) evenin two mistakes, first,giving Lucius for the prae- 
nomen of Valerius, second, by making Valerius die during his 
consulship, both of which are in direct contradiction to Livy. 


Another instance of Augustine having thus followed 
Eutropius in an error is found in DCD V.22:quintus 
ea(ce. bel locltali¢o) antams nem died ar 
See note p. 234.13. 

Again, forthe promissa etiam quarta parte 
regni—the offer of Pyrrhus to Fabricius—(p. 227. 12) 
Eutropius was Augustine’s only authority, unless this occurred 
in the lost thirteenth book of Livy. He has also had Eutro- 
pius before him for DCD V. 22, as will be seen from the notes 
on p. 234. 

It will be seen from the above brief treatment of Eutro- 
pius that Kuhlmann is not correct when he writes (work cited 
aAbOVEe Dp: 10): (hia Clea p Use tir to Mm: verte 6 upmawec 
(OnMeo hum 7 Ves tieia din, . Averitt ede 
civitate Der bibro.primo alte no Shee ame 
cog moscuntar C, .Salklus tit Gapispaeeei ue 
Livi, Iuli Flori—omitting Eutropius, and again (on p. 
20.) Un-o, ‘teawnst um “lo'eo: 1. 3. ©) te, eauletiewm acim 
parte..con seri ben. dia, a:b. -q:o mondo, ees 


49 


Reomman! m Or tis mt Bmew 1S Sime com pl.ec- 
Geman mcr at, Utero pitas. vide tur Au gus- 
Gimo ob Oc ulos fwis s esi tem qu.e.su.b f1n.em 
Sore) CD iy s huis Se riptoris westigia 
Seca bi Si erst. 


AUGUSTINE’S METHOD OF EMPLOYMENT OF Livy, FLORUS AND 


EUTROPIUS. 


In regard to Augustine’s manner of employment of Livy, 
Florus and Eutropius a few words more may be said. For 
lists and epitomes of events of Roman history, and for ac- 
counts of distinguished Romans, he seems to have employed 
Florus and Eutropius whenever they gave the information 
which he required, evidently because their works were briefer 
and more handy for such reference than the long and detailed 
account of Livy. He shows, however, such an extensive 
knowledge of Livy’s history that we may not doubt that, even 
in such cases, he knew the account of Livy, which he did not 
always follow. When the information Augustine sought was 
not to be found in Florus or Eutropius, or found in them in- 
complete or otherwise not suited to his purpose, he had re- 
course to Livy. 


As examples of what has been said we may observe that 
Florus was used in DCD III. 14 for the account of the mutual 
slaughter of Romans and Albans, the fight of the Horatii and 
Curiatii, and for the death of thesister of the surviving Hora- 
tius. Perhaps also the list in DCD III. 26 is from Florus, 
although the details given at the end of the chapter do not 
seem to be taken from Florus. We have shown already that 
the list of the victims of the victoria Mariana in 
DCD III. 27 has been taken from Florus, as also the events 
given in III. 28. 

Somewhat more extensively has Eutropius been employed 
for such recapitulations; compare .DCD III. 15 for the man- 
ner of the deaths of the kings: III. 16 (ad fin.) for the 
Gonsuls of the yea qui comsules quinque 


5O 


habuit: perhaps also for the alterations in the boundary 
of the Roman state in the times of Hannibal, Hadrian and 
Iulianus respectively (DCDIV. 29). 

Certain examples are found in DCD V. 18 where Eutro- 
pius has been employed for the accounts there given of Regu- 
lus, Z. Valerius, Quintius Cincinnatus and Fabricius; and in 
DCD V. 22 for the enumeration of the different wars and their 
respective periods of duration. 

Livy has been put the same service when Florus and 
Eutropius did not give the needed or suitable information, 
e. g. in DCD I. 23 what is related of Cato Uticensis, Torqua- 
tus and Caesar was evidently taken from a portion of Livy now 
lost. Livy was employed for the events given in DCD II. 17, 
the details of which are not given by the other writers, and for 
the list of prodigies in II. 24 and II. 25, not found in Florus 
or Eutropius, 

The most conspicuous use of Livy in such a case is found 
in DCD IIL. 17 and III. 18 (p. 123-128); where he has been 
employed for the long review and conspectus of events of 
Roman history from the death of the consul Valerius until 
the beginning of the second Punic war, also in chapter 19 
and 20 along with other authorities and in chapter 21 as the 
authority for the list of events; and again in DCD III. 24 and 
III. 31; and in DCD IV. 20 for the bravery of Mucius, Curtius 
and the Decii father and son. 


3.) LACTAN TIUs: 


Lactantius is mentioned by name in DCD XVIII. 23, and 
I think there are three traces of a use of his writings in the 
first ten books of the City of God. For example, for the state- 
ment made it DCD 1X. as 7ita- ut 3 ps im- Ao semm 
Sesame ab, Homero fateantur dwemonem 
nuaneupatum, Lactantius” (Div. Inst: “40.9 27.7 415) 
must be the source: credant Homero qui stim- 
mum illtino Lloyém dadenmonipds adere- 
gavit. In addition to the difficulty as to whether this is 


Ly! 


really found in Homer, except by implication, Augustine’s - 
language ab Homero fateantur does not seem to 
mean that he got it from Homer himself. If Augustine had 
meant to imply direct Homeric authority or even the indirect 
authority of a Latin version, he would naturally have written 
fomenus (ipse)) fateatwr or some such ex- 
pression. 

MaDe Ic 20 DW aemomes €nim di cun- 
Ppt ote) tae st! ay Seven tive "no mai nsa tl is 
perhaps taken from Lactantius (Div. Inst. 2. 14.6) dae- 
mores.autem vrammatici1 diectos aiunt 
Gms it woaynovas, 1d e@St peritos ac rerum 
S€10:s. 

iiheeswords “alio.s idiam nabitles qwuos ¢t 
Mmoebewie os wuleus app ellat - (DED X. -9) 
bear so striking a resemblance to those of Lactantius (Div. 
Mints toa) et fii qwos vere mea Defiicos 
vulgus appellat_ that it would seem Augustine must 
have had in mind Lactantius at this place. 


4. JUVENAL. 


Juvenal is not mentioned in the City of God or elsewhere 
by Augustine, but in Ep. 138. 3. 16 some verses are quoted from 
Mii kieewerdss Perihputedids atatis (DCD II; 
23) in connection with the name Marius seem to give a strong 
presumption that here Augustine had in mind the words of 
Juvenal (Sat «. 49) fruitur dis iratis — used of 
another Marius. See note p. 85. 23. 





In addition to all these authorities given, Augustine had 
no doubt others whom we cannot certainly identify, especially 
maitcts or chronology; as, aliae fideliores 11t- 
Be toe and gut Chronic am his toriam per- 
Se cite sant - (DED TV. 6). 

Another literary source used by Augustine was the letter 
of Alexander the Great to his mother Olympias. This is 
treated of in the note on p. 327. 25. 


52 


CONSPERCTUS 


SHOWING ALL THE LITERARY SOURCES 


(Except the Bible) 


For THE First TEN Books OF THE De Civitate Det. 


BOOK 
PREFACE. Virgil once cited. 
CHAPTER 
I LVone. : 
2-4 Incidental use of Virgil, Horace, Cicero (or Ennius). 
5 Sallust only. 
6 Livy almost entirely—Virgil once used incidentally. 
7-11 LVone. 
12 Slight use of Lucan, and Cicero (?) 
13 NVone. 
14 Aulus Gellius used once. 
a Livy and Cicero. 
16-18 Lone. 
19 Livy and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 
20-21 LVone. 
22 Cicero. 
23-24 Livy only. 
25-29 LVone. 
30-33 Livy only. 
34 Unknown—an error. 
35-36 Lone. 


Livy is thus the chief literary source for the first 
book. 


53 


BOOK If. 
CHAPTER 
I-4 LVone. 
5 Livy. 
6 Persius, and perhaps an unknown source (for 
Fugalia). 
7 Persius and Terence—b th incidental. 
8 NVone. 
9 Cicero only. 
ie) LVone. 
II Cicero and Labeo. 
12-13 Cicero. 
14 Cicero and Labeo--chiefly Cicero. 
15 Varro and Livy. 
16 Cicero and Livy. 
17 Sallust and Livy—chiefly Livy. 
18 Sallust, Livy, alii scriptores— chiefly 
Sallust. 
19 LVone. 
20 Cicero once. 
21 Sallust, Cicero, Ennius—chiefly Cicero. 
22 Sallust and Livy—slight use of Virgil. 
23 Livy. Juvenal used once (?) 
24-5 Livy only. 
26 Lone. 
24 Cicero only. 
28 LVone. 
29 Virgil once quoted. 
Cicero, Sallust and Livy are the three chief literary 
sources for the second book, 
BOOK III. 
CHAPTER 
I LVone. 
2-3 Virgil, Homer, Sallust, 
4 Varro only. 


5 Livy. 


54 


CHAPTER 

6 

7-8 

9 

10 

Tale 

12 

13 

14 


21-22 


28-29 


CHAPTER 
I 


nb WwW N 


LVone. 

Livy ; Virgil once. 

Livy, Varro, Cicero—chiefly Livy. 

Sallust, Virgil, Livy. 

Livy and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 

Livy and Varro. 

Livy, Lucan and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 

Florus, Livy, Sallust and Virgil—chiefly Florus and 
Livy. 

Cicero, Eutropius, Florus, Livy, Virgil — chiefly 
Cicero and Eutropius. . 

Sallust, Livy, Virgil, Eutropius—chiefly Eutropius 
and Livy. 

Sallust, Livy, Varro—chiefly Sallust and Livy. 

Livy only. 

Livy, Florus, Eutropius—chiefly Florus and Livy. 

Livy and Florus—chiefly Livy. 


Livy only. 
Vone-—F lorus (?) 
Livy. 
Livy and Labeo—chiefly Livy. 
Livy only. 


Cicero, Lucan, Florus, Livy—chiefly Florus. 

Florus only. 

Florus (?) and unknown. 

Livy—Virgil once. 

Thus there are four principal literary sources in the 





third book—Livy, Florus, Eutropius and Cicero. 
BOOK IV, 
Varro. 
Apuleius only. 
LNVone. 
Cicero. 


Florus or Eutropius (?) or Livy (?) 


CHAPTER, 
eT 


8-11 
12-15 
16-19 
20 
21-24 
25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 
31-32 
Sonat 


55 


fustinus (P rosum Lom peium secut us), 
someunknownpaddaae Lidieliores 11t- 
terae and someunknown qui chroni- 
Cai hss Ormedsa dime opre-pis.e C uti Ss unit: 
Varro chiefly—Virgil twice. 
LVone. 
Varro. 
Varro, Cicero, Livy —chiefly Cicero and Livy. 
Varro only. 
None. 
Cicero, Varro, Livy. 
Varro only. 
LVone. 
Varro and Eutropius. 
Cicero only. 
Varro only. 
Lone. 


Varro is the principal literary source for the fourth 


PREFACE 
CHAPTER 


book. 


BOOK V. 
LVone. 


LVone. 

Cicero only. 

LVone 
Cicero. 

LVone. 
Annaeus Seneca and Cicero. 
Cicero. 

LVone. 


Sallust, Cicero, Virgil—chiefly Sallust and Virgil. 
Horace and Cicero, 

LVone. 
Virgil, Livy, Eutropius, Florus—chiefly Eutropius. 
Sallust, Virgil and unknown. 


56 


CHAPTER. 
20 
21 
22 
23-24 
25-26 
PREFACE 
AND 
CHAPTER 
I 
2 
3-9 
IO-il 
12 
PREFACE 
CHAPTER 
I 
2 
3 
4-8 
9 
10 
II-12 
13-24 
25 
26 
27 


Cicero only. 

Unknown. 

Eutropius and Florus—chiefly Eutropius, 

LVone. 

None, partly Claudianus and Cicero. 

Cicero is the chief single source for the fifth book, 
and next to him come Livy, Eutropius and 
Florus. 


BOOK VI. 


None—but Virgil once used. 

Varro, Cicero, Terentianus Maurus. 

Varro only. 

Annaeus Seneca only. 

Varro. 

Varro is almost the only literary source for the sixth 
book. 


BOOK VII. 
LVone. 


Varro and Tertullian. 
Varro only. 
Varro and Sallust — chiefly Varro. 
Varro only. 
Varro—Virgil once. 
LVone. 
Varro—Sallust once. 
Varro only. 
Porphyry. 
LNVone—V arro. 
Virgil and the history of Euhemerus quam 
Ennias in Latin ym verti t_ elo - 
Gaui wm, 


CHAPTER. 
28-30 
Soao- 
33039 


CHAPTER 


6-13 
14 

15 

16 

17 
18-26 
27 


CHAPTER 


57 


Varro. 

LVone. 
Varro only. 
In the seventh book, asin the preceding, Varro is the 

principal source. 
BOOK VLE, 

None. 
Cicero. 
Letter of Alexander the Great to his mother Olym- 


pias, and Varro and Cicero. 

Cicero (?) Labeo (?) writers on Neoplatonism. 

Apuleius only. 

Apuleius—and Pliny (?) 

Apuleius only. 

Cicero and Apuleius. 

Apuleius; Cicero once. 

Letter of Alexander the Great to his mother 
Olympias. 

Apuleius is the chief literary source for the eighth 
book. 


BOOK TX. 


Lactantius. 
Apuleius. 
Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Virgil. 
Apuleius only. 
Sallust. 
Plotinus. 
Apuleius only. 
Lone. 
Apuleius. 
Plotinus. 
None, 


58 
CHAPTER 
19 
20 
21-22 


23 


CHAPTER 


23-24 


28-29 


Labeo. 
Lactantius, 
Lone. 
Cicero (in his translation of Plato’s Timaeus, see 
HED XT. 16): 
So also in the ninth book Apuleius is the principal 
literary source. 


BOOK X. 


Virgil once. 
Plotinus. 
Cicero. 
LVone. 
Cicero (?) 
LVone. 
lactantius, Porphyry, Apuleius —chiefly Porphyry. 
Porphyry only. 
LVone. 
Plotinus. 
LVone. 
Plotinus, Varro, Lucan, Livy — chiefly Varro. 
LVone. 
Porphyry. 
LVone. 
Virgil once, and Porphyry. 
LVone. 
Porphyry. 
LVone. 
Porphyry. 
Apuleius, Porphyry, Virgil. 
Porphyry. 
Porphyry, Plotinus, Virgil. 
Cicero and Porphyry. 
Porphyry. 
Porphyry—in the Latin version of Victorinus —is 
the principal literary source for the tenth book. 


59 


In the composition of Books I—V, full of historical 
color, we see that Augustine employed principally Livy, Sal- 
lust, Florus, Eutropius, Cicero (chiefly for Azstory), Labeo and 
Mircie. At the close of the fifth book he dropped these 
authors and took up for the philosophical-mythological books 
VI—X a different set composed of Apuleius, Plotinus, 
Porphyry, Plato (in incomplete versions and from general 
knowledge) and Cicero (chiefly for philosophy). Varro has been 
used in both divisions, but chiefly in the latter; and Augustine 
naturally deals with only the second part of Varro’s great 
work — the sixteen books De Rebus Divinis—as suiting his 
theme. 

Augustine’s poetic quotations are confined — with but few 
exceptions —to the first five books. 

Note also that long lists and brief epitomes are to be 
found largely in the first five books. 

Of course Augustine uses the Latin Bible freely, both in 
the Vulgate and Itala. But these Biblical sources are so plain 
that they need no discussion here, and, moreover, nearly all 
the instances have been italicized and identified in Dombart’s 
edition. Some expressions are merely suggested by Biblical 
language, but I have noted one citation which Dombart has 
Beeulooked :praef. p. 3.18, Dieus adiutor noster 
est isa quotation from Ps. 61. 9. 


60 


NOTE ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE De CIVITATE DkEt. 


A. Ds, 354:. Augustine born. 

A D. 410. Final sack of Rome by. Alaric. Orosius 
(Adv. Paganos, 40) givesthe date: anno itaque ab 
urbe comdita MeL XIIII irr,wptie webes 
per Al arie mimi fare tea est. 

A. D. 412. Letter of Marcellinus to Augustine (BE vol. 
II. col. 515) reminding him of his promise to write. 


Before 415. Book I written and perhaps issued sep- 
arately as a timely short answerto the pagani. Augus- 
tine, calls it a. volumeen, not-a litber, atcterend- 
Hie itaque modus sit hutus-vol t@minis 
(p. 52. 31), whereas at the opening of Book IV, he speaks of 
was th fimeée primi Liber (p1146.%26)> CAL the 
end of Book V he expressly states that the first three books 
had been issued as one treatise: quorum tres priores 
edidissem et in multorum mamibas esis. 
Soepissent (p. 241%.. 10), 

A. D. 415. In this year Augustine added Books IV and 
V to the first three already issued, as he states in his letter 
to Evodius written at the end of that year: nam tribus 
ibhis Libres )D ©€ 2Givdt ate aD eu er doions 
alies addidimus» Qu biespeqmiud ae Bie 
bar's sia fis id is pu fa tums eanr bet fom) eres 
(BE. II. col. 742). By this time, then, the first five books are 
finished and, in the author’s eyes, constitute the first com- 
pleted section of a developed plan, which is to be completed 
by adding a similar second section (which becomes Books 
VI.-X.), as he himself promised at the end of his first book: 
Deimceps dicendum  €s4 Sic ut jipeeemee 
hebno pollirerti swim us adv ers tismcorsequual 
Proepter vitam post mortem, i womens 
meceSSariuyim exis timant cml tum sccon um 
SuoOT im, propter quam vitam @hrwis tram 
Saanius.. His: dibro primo ‘p olMientt Scum 
fefers to Postremo advérs us, cc.os) ice 


61 


Mi — —COManttirasserere non prop ter 
Peeaeen pura este nt ise ult IMinba tem, sed pr o'p- 
Zone am Quae ost mortem fwtura est 
(ps i52% 16). 

After A. D. 415. When his second section of five books 
is completed, making ten books in all, he asserts with apparent 
inconsistency, that he will go on to complete his promise in 
the first book by writing de duarum civitatum, 
EEeortuwse Pip rocursu, et debitis fini bw s— 
the subject matter of the next twelve books which constitute 
the rest of the De Civitate Dei (p. 460.32). Such a promise does 
indeed occur in the first book, but in such a way as to suggest 
that he had in mind an additional discussion complementary 
fomnise original theme (DCD. "1. 35, p. 52.25.) ~The contra- 
diction is apparent rather than real. In Book I he did have 
the thought of his greater task in mind—but incidentally, and 
in suspense until his definitely mapped first treatise I—X was 
worked out. Zhen the suggestion of the latter treatise 
(XI-XXI1) naturally takes on fuller form. 

The second part of the De Civitate Dei (Books XI-XXII) 
gives scarcely any information measuring the progress of the 
composition. ‘There are three sections of four books each. 
At the very opening (p. 462. 4-14) he merely reaffirms what he 
had written at the end of book X, and starts in his first section 
erfour books; ¢x‘ordia istarum duarum €iv1i'- 
tatum. At the end of this first section (XI-XIV) (II p. 57) 
there is no analysis or summary, and he passes on without 
comment to his secomd section (XV-XVII). At the end of 
the second section he states that he has been arguing 
Pesan Sit Guar wim civaitatum . . 3 -e€:x+ 
cursus (II. p. 345.14), and hints at the character of his 
approaching third (or final) section: percipiat una- 
Spieaveiq We ’S iu m- fine m (1 p. 345.23). 

The final section (XIX-X XII) opens with such evidence of 
deliberation, as though the author had rested after his weari- 
some progress and retired into his thoughts for a fully consid- 
ered last effort as he comes to the consummation, that it 


62 


seems necessary to suppose he did not pass currente 
calamo from the second to the third section, but took a 
breathing space—more than days no doubt—but whether 
weeks or months, none can say —just a literary pause, enough 
to hold in the reins and look around before essaying the last 
dash. 

The eighteenth book seems to have been finished shortly 
before 425 A. D., as may be argued from per triginta 
ferme annos in its last chapter (Dombart II. 345. 1.). 
This leaves only a short time for Augustine to hasten to the 
end, and the increasing speed of this final section when com- 
pared with the more labored earlier parts, is plain to every 
reader. 

When he stops, his last sentence shows he knew his 
iagn um. op 1s.¢t ard wu mwas (overs. Vii deo s 
Mma bea dceub'i tum, © ine ce ny tits ») (ints; sospieroais 
adiuvante Deo nino re ddiidis se, and sajon to 
his concluding emphatic Amen. Amen. 

A. D. 426-427. We can set no exact dates for the stages 
of his work after the first five books. His Retractations, 
however, written A. D. 426-427, mention the De Civitate as a 
completed and revised work (II. cap. 43) and give an analy- 
sis. Augustine says: >Quod opus me, tenuit per 
aliquot annos, apparently not feeling quite certain 
of the exact number of years. It was written between 410 and 
426-427, apparently after the letter of Marcellinus in 412. 
We may therefore take 412-426 as the outer limits of its com- 
position. : A. F. WEsT. 


y 


4 
a 


& 
2 
‘ 
: 





64 


II. ANNOTATIONS ON BOOKS I.-X. 


(The pair of numbers prefixed to each annotation refers to the 
page and line in Dombart’s text.) 


ieyeyor< JI. 


Page 1, line 3. Roma  Gothorum Aas up- 
COE. “ava En tw ils ©S Usb ese 6 el avceineeO ene 
Sever asi emeusatan 

Rome was burned and sacked by the Goths in the year 
410, after the third siege in the second invasion of Alaric. 
Augustine in his Sermones ad populum, 106. 9. 10, (works 
BE, vol. 5) in referring to the fall of Rome also notices 
the pagan charge that this calamity was due to the. Chris- 
tians. See also Ep. 99, (BE. vol. 2) ; and Orosius, Adver- 
sus, Paganes. 7.93740, “A dest, Alagi cms. ere 
pat diam) (Romig m0; bis: 1 deere, ett bidet ai ae ue 
pit. Orosius gives the date (chapter 40) as 410 A. D. 
a N.0 i tag use ab unbe comdita Mi C Rexel 
Lit Wp tte, wr bis pies pAch acim ase tea ers 

Opposite positions have been taken by different scholars as 
to Augustine’s attitude to the fall of the Roman empire, some 
asserting that as a patriot he showed the most intense sym- 
pathy, others that as a Christian apologist he was utterly in- 
different to the catastrophe. Ozanam (History of Civilization 
in the Fifth Century, Eng. trans. vol. 1. p. 22): ‘‘But the 
catastrophe which terrified the whole world afforded no aston- 
ishment to St. Augustine, whether his great genius was less 
bound by an antique patriotism, or whether love had raised 
it to calmer heights, he was able to measure with a firmer 
glance the portentous events around him.” Gregorovius, 
(History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. trans, 
vol. I. p. 169): ‘“‘If the laments of the former (i. € 
Jerome) express the consciousness of the ancient politi- 
cal greatness of Rome, the heart of the African Augus- 
tine is touched by no such considerations. ‘The greatest 
genius among the theologians of the Roman church was only 
intoxicated with enthusiasm at the victory of Christianity.” 


65 


McCabe (St. Augustine and his Age p. 298) ‘‘The truth is 
that Augustine had scarcely a spark of human sympathy with 
-the disasters of Rome. The sermon (De urbis excidio), 
which he preached on the receipt of the news, expresses only 
an eagerness to draw spiritual profit from the event.’”” On the 
other hand as opposed to these three citations we have the 
opinions of Dill (Roman Society in the last Century of the 
Western Empire, Bk. 1, chap. 3, p. 65): *‘Yet here S. Augus- 
tine is guilty of a patriotic inconsistency. He is, after all, a 
true Roman at heart. He is proud of the great past of Rome. 
and of the qualities which had given her her place in the 
world;” and E. de Pressensé’s article on St. Augustine (in Dic- 
tionary of Christian Biography): ‘‘ The effect which his elo- 
quence produces is all the greater because we feel that 
Christian as he is, he remains still a citizen. Christianity has 
not inspired him with a selfish contempt of human sufferings, 
under the pretext that they form part of the plan mapped out 
in prophecy. He mourns over the calamities of Rome, but his 
tears do not conceal from him the destinies of the City of God:” 
and that mentioned by McCabe (p. 298): ‘‘A recent French 
writer ingeniously concludes that Augustine’s ‘soul was rent’ 
by the news of the fall of Rome, but he avoided the subject in 
the excessive pain it gave him.” 

To decide between these two conflicting sets of opin- 
ions we must go to Augustine himself. Compare De 
Minis sexcidioy sermo.2, 3) Elio rr en da nobis, nun! - 
MPntitmes iis Suteina Oe So tiaic ta. an Cem Gd dias 
Bape wi Mitiek Met ion es, €X Cr ucia tio nes 
nmin Um: Ver itm, est. multa audivim us; 
CMa Gemwimus* Saepe fLlévim,us, wi x 
Souso lati (stimus; non abnuo, non .neé¢g 0 
Myileteas mt Oss a ed isis 6, mwltainm alla ur bye 
Soca ocmumls saa Win 2.9 45° he. ’speaks ‘of the 
insignificance of the sufferings at the fall of Rome 
compared with eternal punishment, compara ad 
cmicmiam, ct Leve est omne.quod cogi- 
Paced eo tempo tm alli Sra. iba ae tern u SE's ti, 


66 


eit (@.- Wi Sto rqaret. etogq uit oriqute tian. ) etecalse 
shows the necessity of repentance, and that God did not treat 
the city as it deserved, but in a sense spared it. He concludes 
with the lesson of the utility of temporal tribulation. Compare 
SCHMO Toh. o2 12,, Sed) nome dic at. dieewkiomna. 
dxretum jest deyme;s(O,-0s1 “ta ce-ait ide ARiomiar 
Gaist se g10! Ans ua ht a t-or<sim:, "et non poreus 
Dio i ii de prec ators 4cit Vie\st €f eiguiataes 
Cun re = hort ator. Absit ae nm evs ae 
Sa lhtem. )) Awe rtat) Deus ia cotrid € imiexo tet 
a id) .0) 10-16. s6s0 nis Coen Pada e--mea-e4— “lybye* mruilee 
ties fra tc-es. “mom h-ab-ud mussi7 in ou ia deulnse 
halbemws ? 78h oreo ip etae ri mantis Germ. 
salem “crv €jatis) mom, A.D ma ona dieweiter 
These words would seem to imply that his hearers, or some one, 
had accused him of using words of indifference or of insult 
(quasi ego insultator) over the disasters of Rome. 
It is most remarkable that in the whole City of God there is 
not one really sympathetic reference adequate to the greatness 
of the calamities caused by the fall of Rome. It is true 
in the passage cited above from the De urbis excidio 
sermo Augustine says Omnia gemuimus, saepe 


FlevVim us.» Vix cons 0 tat isin us.) butethis 
isolated instance of the expression of his sorrow should not be 
stretched so far as some scholars have stretched it. Prof. 
Dill cites two passages from DCD to show Augustine was 
‘‘proud of the great past of Rome and of the qualities which 
had given her her place in the world,” namely DCD V. 5 his 
Omnibus arti bws tam quam vera “vid sous 


Siem-ts. ad “bo n0-res: “amp er tum Iecliouer agua 
henora ti sunt in omnibus fere igen troans. 
bi p.etii sui > ese sin pos te rant anes 
Sen tb. ws...) percep é€ rant merc emean 


suamy; but Augustine had no such sentiment that I can dis- 
cover in regard to her present. He was indeed both proud and 
tender as he thought of the ancient civic and moral grandeur 
of Rome, despite her paganism. Compare his exhortation in 


67 


Beieezn Ol nidoles Romana laudabilis, 
Ceyao we nve ss) Rie omlorum, Scaevol'aruwm 
Pcoen eo mW mils Kaw bur ie ion Wm ke ee oo Tan) 
Suto fbi oloria populbaris adfurt.. 
PeeMmMety On scree hey die Se St, “SiC. ut € x pe r= 
MeGtid es il quibwsdam - .-. = (and so on through 
mie chapter). | Professor Will’ also refers to DCD V.. 21 
without specifying which words. We _ give those which 
monld= most; favor his own view: Ille igitur 
MMnES aor Sea eu S's ode i. ie © -i uu -dii-c.10° ne ¢ 
adiutorio deserit genus humanum, quando 
Montini terme Lued nt Wim yoo limit “Romanis ree - 
Mime ecuit. Gul cedit ASSyriis. veél etiam 
Persis. In these words where is the feeling about the 
present? They seem to put Rome only on the same plane 
with Assyria and Persia; yet it is not unpatriotic, but like 
Rudyard Kipling’s passionate ‘one with Nineveh and Tyre’ 
in his ‘ Recessional’. 

Of course we are surprised to find so little lacrimae 
rerum in Augustine in face of so great a calamity as the 
fall of the mistress of the world. ‘This is emphasised by the 
contrast with the words of Jerome Ep. 126. 2 (works BE vol. 
mecolroso) Hizechielirs volumen olim ag- 
Pe@e iM WICEb i > do. on Sed in ipso. dictand4 
EPerrid Ho. ta animus meus. Occidentali um 
PIGOeveMe tac. my, 6 tia xi me ur bis Rio mae 
Misha thon 6 .cOomius us ES t wt, iuxta. vul- 
Buc pt e.ver biti, “proprinm .quoque 
LnorPateam ivocabulum: diuque tacui, 
Semmens tempus esse lacrimarum; also Ep. 
eee moh snes as! com bis terrarium f uit; 
mien obisepeccata Don ruunt. Urbs in- 
Gita et. Reo mMam Dn peri’ caput, uno 
Pewusease Stance d ho. Nulla es t-\r eg 10 
mere non. exules Romanos habeat. In 
Smimeres. ac favillias) Ssacrae quondam 
Scckesiae come lider ynt 


68 


We must also remember that Jerome did not write any 
great work called forth by the fall of Rome, in which he might 
more fitly embody his thoughts. 


tO. ws tao “nO Mane wpuayec arose 

The name pagani as a synonym for gentes or 
gentiles was in common use at this time and even 
previously. Compare Jerome Ps. 412 Siquidem pacand 
cdeos suos digitio osten dunt 


m9. 11D (0 Ss werciiiaieeOcs: 

Of the twenty-two books under the title of De Cvvitate 
Det, it is really only the second part (Books XI.—X XII. which 
treats of the de civitate Dei in the strict sense. ‘lhe first part 
(Books I.-X.) deals mainly with the ¢errena civitas. This 
incongruity about the name of the work Augustine himself 
noticed and “explained : Ita @ mimes. Wise dna ea: 
dato libre am is teat “die. uttkiardsare sos 
tate "Ons CTI p £1 ot Hew) wim tea on eon, 2 ame 
Itoreoacceperumt. wt, ae ciara) pom eues 
VO Cat erm t0.r (py i2s0), 


£./ 10; Onu-o-d: <0. puis: spre © Sar leigeusost yea, nuneoss 
Met Clint, tba 

See Prof. A. F. West’s Note on the Composition of the 
De Civitate Dei, p 60. 


a. 102 1G 1081.0 Si Ss Sma) cor wt ta tre me Deere 

An echo of Ps. 86. 3 so often quoted by Augustine in 
thisnwork> 9 lio Tio sa ditte-tva ‘s unt) ‘die? te cauwae 
tas Dei. This announcement of the theme in the very 
opening words, in the ancient manner, occurs in similar words 
at the openine of the second part: ~-Civita ten = Wve 
dieimus (DED-XI. 1.) 


Boge hilt ‘Garis sime Maree] laine. 

His name was Flavius Marcellinus. He was brother of 
Apringius who became proconsul of Africa. He was first com- 
mended by Jerome to Augustine for the elucidation of some 


69 


questions which were troubling him, and was kindly received 
by Augustine, between whom and Marcellinus we have extant 
a considerable correspondence, especially with reference to Vol- 
usianus, the friend of Marcellinus, whom the latter was very 
eager for Augustine to persuade to embrace the Chris- 
tian faith. Marcellinus was also appointed by Honorius to 
preside over the conference between the Donatists and 
Catholics, in which capacity his conduct was admired by 
Augustine. (Compare Augustine, Ep. 141, Cod. Theod. 16, 
pee 5) Marinus, after the revolt, defeat and death ‘of 
Heraclian, seized and imprisoned Marcellinus on the charge 
of complicity with the party of the former, and then caused 
his execution. In Retract. 2. 33 and 37 Augustine speaks of 
his dedication to Marcellinus of De peccatorum meritis et re- 
missione, et de Baptismo parvulorum, and De Spiritu et lit- 
tera. Compare Augustine Epp. 128, 129, 133, 134, 139, 141, 
Hadi etOO. etral: 


Avel? een Vek OF pion eC .aeiie ot a, Motels “esx ahte- 
Mees Cont st ob us GOdloT Gm tam que mand = 
Zoeis. Demefiecirs  redemptoris ex us 
MietatiaSumt. ut hodie Contra ea my tine 
Zito Om mouetrent, nist ferrum~ hostile 
Mewtemties: in Sacratiuseius lo Cis. vita m 

ide vec tem, t ; 

SeCuOPOsiis.- Ady .9 Pao amos» 7, 39) te: adest 
Patt Gems. trepidam Romam ob sidet “tur - 
Litwitriimptt, dato tamen  praece pit eo 
Paice "Sie Gui in-.sancta loca: “pr ae= 
cipieqdue in sametorum apostolorum Petri 


Gigetawubi- basilica s .contueis sent); hos 
PMepGeimus Sinwviolatos| se curos que. esse 


Smet emt 

_Aucisine DED Mi 2 sad imiit: -(p. 5) 26) challenges 
the heathen to read the records of wars vel ante con- 
meme Roum ame vel ab Ceiusi! exortu et 
imperio and see if they could find aliquem ducem 


ms 


7O 


barbarorim,‘praecepisse,;' uta inweap to 
oppidomutluis feriretur, quanti wine iale wed 
illo templo fuisset inweén tas, ‘Comparesaise 
De urbis excidio sermo 7. 7: multi in locis sanc- 
(ESE WiNG Salviqwue Servatic su met. 


5.30. aliquem ducem Darbarorum prae- 
Gepissée ut-infrupto op pido nul lastest 
retur qui'in wWiosvel 11 lo. tem plot siser 
inv e Nt as. 

That Augustine has written these words either very 
ignorantly, or in the heat of the conflict against the pa- 
gans, very thoughtlessly, is evident. Even his Benedictine 
editors point this out in the note on this place which 
reads:—Augustinum praetierunt nonnulla 
baguis Tie 1 Vitter ies (G-ravesces, et. lacs innades 
comwsige nata € xem pla. Name em 6 werner oe 
amus lib. 2 de rebwus | gee stais A Ie xeaan ee 
(cap. 24) cap ta, Tyr o> in Ss-Q1 Am. te sep om 
Mercults contugerant, Alex anda mm: ae 
percisse. De Agesilao €tiam Xenophon 
nn Ag. (cap. 2) et Livb= 4 ideo webs Grae 
eo mum, (Caps 53), Put ar chase leap esto), ment 
Bmilius Prop ws 4n. A ¢ est aa oeap 4) nad = 
rant Aps im, A thenten sibs set ,Boeo tims 


60 fiimiquwe- S$ 0'c1 1's” an pre nia Cro rio nea ml 
diesy it. c ita Si,.> mrOnl aS 'Sie) = ELO5S)) lia edi = qnici es ater 
Mamet viae “tie imp im Sie, e Gen ema n te eo 


these examples there might be added others. 


G0.) © Oltsda €.0.5, ony) memes), 

The only instance of the word cordatos in the 
DCD. It savors of Ennius, but Augustine probably got it from 
Cicero, who quotes it from Enniusin e greg le icwridiae 
tus homo (Tuse. 1.9.18) and in ¢ ¢ fee ite) Cord a- 
tls... -24ab Eanio dict us (De Re pubiia neo): 
Annaeus Seneca and Lactantius, both of whom were read and 
quoted by Augustine, also used it, the former in cordatus 


7 


homo (Lud. de morte Claudii 12), the latter in the compara- 
tive form cordatiorem (Div. Inst. 3.20.2). Augustine 
also doubtless met the word in the viri cordati of 
Job. 34.10, which is the vulgate rendering, but cordati 
was not found in the Itala, which gave prudentes 
Cor de. 


e732, "Ca to*. 

All the ancient editors and the best MSS. (C. A. K. F.) 
read Ca/o in this passage, though the words quoted here from 
Sallust Cat. 51 are from a speech of Caesar. Dombart and 
Hoffmann retain the reading of the MSS., and the former adds 
(page ro) Augustinus parum accurate rem 
tractat. The Benedictine editors emend it, reading 
Caesar. Augustine is evidently either in error here or had a 
different reading in his text of Sallust, as the Bened. note 
states Ouod si in eo Augustinus, quod 
Sreditis. © onn tag wam COMmtin g¢ tt, me mo:- 
fra lapsus est, aut Sallustio uwsus vario 
sive mendoso. 


li hy ha ne us Mame ed lu sro. q Ww tiS yi ace ni 
Tce Cepit, Frerertur eam. priucs. i le- 
Wisse Fuituram et ante €ius sanguinem 
Msn eh a Crim as. ef fwd is Se). 05% 

Seeulivyes5eedert: Marcellus ut... urbem 

Poste ct am ocuhis vidit; inilacrimasse 
even eine oVan Maes tas) MoM arc ell: -¢ Fe- 
Mentia Guam clarum quamque meéemora- 
Drbe .exem plum haberi debet, qui’ ca pti-s 
Deseo Vr acwsis ih arceeé €arum co ns ti - 
Bic teks fs bOnthwm a tam ex alto cer n-e- 
Pets Ceterum (casmm e¢ius: lugubrem in - 
ruewms fletum cohrbere non potuit. .Florus 
Epit. 1.22.33 mentions the fact that the city was defended by 
Archimedes, and Eutropius Brev. 3.14 speaks of its capture 
but, like Florus, omits details. Compare also Cic. In Verrem 
4.52.115. Livy is clearly Augustine’s authority. 


72 


lin 5 Co ms ti tu it edicto, me Guns jeonpas 
Libyesrn, maw goo. are t. 

The\words ne quis corpus liber um v io- 
laret occur verbatim in Livy 25.25.7, who also seems to be 
the only authority for this statement, and we conclude he is 
the source of Augustine’s account. 


Tl.-1r, (Fea bau s. ica te metinea ye Surin ose wnee 
SOT; acsimulacrorum od.ep ra ed.a. tome se 
abstinuisse laudatur. Nam cume# scruba 
Su oo eS S1'S:siet quad | die~ sae mri, sdseoynar moe 
fier AubDeret, Contin €ata aa ese aa eae 
1,0,C: a nd. ¢ 0 Dduw 04°. 4-2 7.) VR- ed my qa acme 
io sc Wal ty) Lia be Det iniaikS. CGue TO. 5 dh aabrOsSie 

This Fabius was the famous Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator. 
Augustine derives the story from Livy, who appears to be the 
only authority for the details here given. See Livy 27.16.8: 
séd, Maio Tre Aa pim.o -c enews sews. pie apeeaee 
abstinuirt Fa biws quam, Mea need fms a qe 
Pmterr oe anti ss'C ri braxe-/qpuvinds thie) ily sence nes 
yiellet.. ade 01S sir-avt.o's Ea tee ma taiene set enlaen 
Gui iussit. Here Livy ‘stggests* the “comparison Jot 
Marcellus and Fabius. 


FOn 122% Meth eieaP Mii S wid 62s : 

This is a distinctly Christian expression. Literally ‘‘ hu- 
man day. or “the: day of man,~ the opposite,of dies 
Domini, ‘and so usually ‘‘human life,” ‘‘man’s judg- 
ment: ‘Thus, (aut a, bob iumean o odice” lor by mans 
judement,”* «1 Cor.74.3. 


16.20. Spec ala tomes: 
‘‘Watchmen’’—this word occurs 1g times in the Vulgate. 
Augustine has just quoted it from Ezech. 33.6. 


if.at ea ulinns noster, Nol €nsis tepise 
Copii, seme opulbéentissimo divitesyo lan 
Pate pauper ri? mas... . qu add Omer itp sam 
Nolan bax ba ri-yvyastaveru nt) Guedes 
Kemvere fur, SiC \an-cor diel Smo Git aibase 


is 


moOstea Oro NOV hits. preca bat ur :° "Dio 
Miche sihOn 6 xe hl Ghed i prmop ter aurum et 
Bae et tims Whi enim? sin t “oO mn ia’ mea’; 
tees Cu Set 


This is related after a personal interview (ut ab eo 
postea cognovimus). Paulinus was born in 353 
and after having spent many years in the services of the world, 
during which he enjoyed high civil honors, he accepted Chris- 
tianity and was baptised 389. He then gave up public life and 
visited Florence, where he met Ambrose, and Rome, where he 
met Pope Siricius. ‘Thence he passed to Nola and was ap- 
pointed bishop in 409. This office he faithfully discharged 
until his death, which took place in 431. Of his writings we 
‘have extant his Epistulae and Poemata. To him also is 
attributed in the MSS. the Passio S. Genesii. This is the only 
place in the DCD where Augustine quotes the oral words of a 
contemporary. Elsewhere he refers to him and had a consid- 
erable correspondence with him. Ep. 27 is addressed to Pau- 
linus and is full of his praises. Ep. 186.12.39: Fragrant 
Shits epusitilae st wae @@Gore Since ri-ssi.mo 
Swris ti, whl CSermanissimus o@ratiad= 1 p- 
Situ eGtlector ef confessor: appares . 
We learn from Ep. 42 that Paulinus wrote a work against the 
pagans which Augustine repeatedly asked him to forward. 
The fact that Nola was sacked by the Goths in 410 is pre- 
served for us by Augustine alone. It was sacked by them on 
their southward march through Campania after their destruc- 
tion of Rome. This march is mentioned by Procopius: De 
bello Vandalico 1.2.24 ; Sozomen H. E. g.8, but they omit to 
menion Nola. Augustine refers to the same event in his De 
cura pro mortuis gerenda 16.19, where he says of the appear- 
ance Of scant Kelix cum a barbarirs Nola op-= 
Biecen a Tie tu, aiidivitmus n-Om inc er tis 
Sim Onis, Sed Cas tibus c.ertis.,./and itis 
iMiehly, probable. that the same testibus certis is 
the source of the information given above by Augustine. 
Hodgkin says (Italy and her Invaders, vol. 1, p. 806), ‘‘We 


74 


hear incidentally of one captured town, Nola, which had re- 
sisted Hannibal when flushed with his great success at Cannae, 
but which apparently did not delay the victorious march of 
Alaric,” and then records the incident about Paulinus of Nola. 


25.2. Vertu m, ta mem: ise p 0 ictiea eC ihe ae 
etiam eorum philosoph contempsern nt. 

Compare Soerates’ reply to his friends in regard to his 
burial in the death scene at the close of the Phaedo. See also 
Cic. Tusc. 1.43.102-104 for the reply of Theodorus to Lysi- 
machus, who threatened to crucify him, ‘Istis, quaeso’ 
im Quit, “1-S.ta h-o © 1dba doa: Sn ist aor.e. opt 
pPuTratis “Meumis < TC ihe.e diets: quand se ma, snmdanstel 
imterest bi mio.é ans abil ine— pte s 6 alee: 
and for the story of Diogenes’: proici se ausset 
inhi mati mM. Ta m am ic 1< oy ola € pag emi 
et ferisy) >= *- Morn ime. vie Gs Gri mug aes eee 
bacillum propter me Gu 0.2abisiam pont 
tote’ —-O wi potters 2. 111c. oon Jeni moses. 
ties’ ~ Ould 191 tur mint. ter arian ange 
tus oberit nihid sent ie nt in: and therepigas 
Anaxagoras to his friends’ enquiry whether he wished to be 
removed to his native Clazomenae si quid acci- 
Gis set: -SNa hal] saercre Sie aye SE) Sign paaier 
Sad Aigo Ent m fad Pn den Os, | ata Ab onde ae 
Viti € Nest 


24°15, 5a t quidem et alia qiwae samers 
pattiare hae de corpori bus 'suis\*vedicom- 
dendis vel.transferendis propheti¢ea 
Sprritu-daceta mtéellicl-volwergaie 

For condendis compare the directions given by 
Jacob “Gen. 49.29, Sep elite’ me cum patois 
meis in speélunca duplier gute ester 
gero Epihren Hethaet, “and for ‘trait e- 
rendis the directions of Joseph Gen. 50.24, asportate 
Ossa Meda vobrsicum de loro isto: 


75 


oe qattamven on suis T1rtteris ‘¢re- 
Gune Arionem Methymnaeum, nobilis- 
TommiMmescitharistam., cum ‘esset detect us 
Cavin exrce ptm delphini dorso et ad 
em fa se sisve per Ve C.tiu my, 

The earliest mention of this story occurs in Hdt. 1.23, 24. 
Herodotus relates how Arion stood on board and played be- 
fore those who coveted his money, and how when he ceased 
they threw both him and his xiOdépa into the sea and rov 8é 
deAdiva A€yovar trocaPovra e&eveixar ért Taivapor. 

Augustine, however, hardly went to Herodotus for it. 
Nor could he well get it from Cicero, who only once (Tusc. 
227207) scerers to-Arion: pra-esto est qui ¢xci- 
pete ve! Gelphinus wt Arionem Meth ym - 
naeum. Compare Ovid Fasti 2.110 sq. Hyginus Fab. 194 
also gives a full account. But I have no doubt that Augustine 
got the story from Aulus Gellius, whose writings he refers to 
inthe DCD IX.4. See N. A. 16.19 where Gellius gives it on the 
authority of Herodotus: fabulam scripsit Hero- 
Momus super fidicine. illo Arrone. 


2eeree Maric use. Reee wl nisi.) 4 ip © Ta torr 
Populi Romani Captivas apud Cartha - 
Seances es fuit, Owi-cum-sibi. mallent 


amo nanis: Suos reddi-quam eorum tenere 
Eapitiw Ose sad, bioc- impetrandum etiam 
Shum praecipue Reguwlum cum ilegatis 
Titcek oma miserunt, prius inuratione 
Gomstrictum si quod volebant minime 
Meme cisset reditunum esse Carthag1- 


Monee Sena tw Com traria. pérs was it 
MiwaNoe c post banc pens u-ashomem )a suis 
Memiostes, tedire compulsus est... At 


Bebe NMe wm se xc oOo slt@atis- atque horrendis 
eumctatibus necaverunt. Inclusum quippe 
mes tO. lie nO, \ wba Stare: cogeretur:, 
Slavisqhe acutissitmis undique confixo 
Peet hkam vigcilrndo peremerunt. 


76 


There were many sources of information at hand in 
regard to Regulus which Augustine might consult. See Livy 
Epit. 18) Re emlus missus »a Carthage tinijen- 
Sibms ad sen atc m; uit) die pralciemete {siewam 
non posset impetrare, ~dée\~comunatadis 
Capitiv 1s) iag er €it, <sied) iuime) aman dip 
Strictus rediturum se Carthagimempsn 
Gommiutari Cap tivos,, mop ) pilaewmic siems, 
Mt{rumque negan di awe tor. ise mae ust ung 
et cum fide cuwstioditay mew on Si S.se Ss S.eiee 
Ssupplicio a Carthaginie msi bits) die ce 
sumpto perit. Also Florus Epit. 1. 18. 23 sq. Eutrop. 
Brevi. 21;"1.- 25... Val, Max a 1, 94, 0.02) xt an, pease 
thaginienses, Atilium Regulum palpeb- 
fis tesectis. machine |) in, (q.uia, nid range 
pracacuti stimuli eminebant, 1mclusum 
Vi giant ipaq atiee es Sit. Ke Omat in) th Ome ea teatg 
doloris nevcayverum t. » Alsov@ics De Oi 20.76c- 
sq. -Int3.27. roo Cicero writes, vi ¢ iia mao, me cabiae 
tur which Augustine may have had in mind in writing 
Vigilando peremerwunt, id. De Pine cons, 
cum: ‘vie miis? "et ace icin tic ae coL ieee 
such variety of authors it is impossible to say Augustine used 
only one or, if so, which one, while it would seem from the 
words (p..20,33) Si autem dicunt M Regul um 
Stam in 01 Vay Gasp ti wit ates dhl a Siq ave ecu 
ClatibDus CoOrporis 2nimi vVirtute beatuam 
esse potuisse that Augustine bad before him Cicero 
divcet pro Me ipsa Virtus nec du bita ba 
ister vestt ol. beato” M. Rev ulam amre por 
Werte... Clan at. yvirtus, be atiod em) pose 
q@ti#am potantem in rosa Thorium (De Hon 
2. 20. 65). Seeid. 5. 29. 83. Yet Augustine must have had 
in mind also the detailed account of Regulus as was found in 
the eighteenth book of Livy, now no longer extant, in which 
no doubt something corresponding to vigilando pere- 
merunt was found, and probably in the main Augustine 
has here followed Livy’s account. 


77 


wiscum ahd cnr itas! mon sit q warm 
concors hominum mulitrtudo. 

See Augustine’s letter to Marcellinus (Ep. 138, 10) quid 
Sst ure m: civiitas nisi muoltitudo homi- 
num in quoddam vinculum redacta con- 
cordia? 

Seac@irce Dew Ree pub a. 255 39, Augustine 
discusses Cicero’s theory of the state in DCD XIX. 21, 


30., 14. Obstetrix wir @inis curusdam 
Mio tiicaLe m man welit,explorans sive 
Ma kev owen tla. SivVe i nGcitia, sive cast, 
Cai tans, p he 6 ,. pret, dued 14. 

This is some story for which there appears to be no 
literary source except this passage. 


Sieg i? le UO re trams Cer te, smart ron am 
nobilem veteremque Romanam, pudici- 
hide: mea canis ef ferumt lawdiabus.. Haras 


MO One scum vrolenter oppresso Tar= 
mri is  Lilruis “libid ) nos € “p Ot iturs 
Eisset | lla seelus*inarprobiss imi iuvy emis 
Painter wero. La tim eyoet. pit opin qt oe Br ute 
Mugiedavit, eosque ad vindicotam, »con- 
Sr atneret tame eo a d.e°. Fh. Sse. Pye F Em 4 it 
Augustine’s account seems to follow the story as told in 
detail by Livy (1. 57-59). See also Florus Epit. 1.1.7, and 
Eutrop. rey. 1.6.2: Nam cum filius eius et 
ce Margi nits -unior nobilis si mam 
Meminam Wuweretiam eandemaque pudi- 
west imad . Collatini Uxorem, stuprasset 
Pte e int tria Marito et patri. et 
MOC "desta, tuisset. in Omnium, con - 
spectu se occidit. Eutropius thus adds et ami- 
cis which is not given in Livy nor followed by Augustine. 
Compare Cic. De Finn. 2. 20.66 who says testata Civis, 
id.j52 22. 64; De Re pub.'2. 25.46: patris e€t propin- 
Galomuim:. De lege 2: 4, ro, ‘Ovid’ ‘Fasti 2. 760 sq. 


78 


Juv. 10. 293. While these sources give substantially the same 
account, Augustine does not follow them but Livy, who seems 
to make only Brutus and Collatinus go to see Lucretia, and 
adds comiclamat vir paterqu ce: (Livy 1£.158)-atter 
her suicide before their eyes. Dion. Hal. Antiq. Rom. 4. 64 
gives the fullest account of the interview previous to the crime. 


ar. 20., Ee regiec -quidam ¢x) hole ower 
citerque declamans-art: “Mirabaledicra. 
duo ‘fuerunt. ef adulterium unus adanticies 

Nothing nearly approaching to these words is found in 
any account of Lucretia with which I am acquainted. Augus- 
tine says they were spoken by quidam declamans, 
and they evidently came from a declamation in some school 
of rhetoric. Juvenal Sat. 1. 16. and 7. 150 and Quintilian 
Inst. Or. 10. 5. 13-14 give some samples of the subjects 
chosen for such declamations, and this famous incident was 
probably a trite theme. 

Compare for the form of the expression Livy 1. 58. 7, 
Ceferum ‘corpus. ¢€st_tantum. viola tum: 
a: 1am 1s 31-ns ons. 


31.29. Neaimis ide “pia erties (ern ep ate 
pulsiusi est 

The source is Livy 1.60. 2; for the passage see note on 
arr. 


a4. 4: “1 Sa mctis scat omicais Diba, 

Augustine in the De Doctrina Christiana, chap. 8, gives his 
opinion of the nature and number of the libri canonici, 
from which we learn that the canon as received by Augustine 
included all the books of our present Bible, and the apocrypha 
also. 


ana) Manichaeorum) error ic 

Augustine was a follower of this sect for nine years and 
was well acquainted with all their tenets; Conf. 4.1: Per 
id-em tempus annorum novVwemsab aa de- 
Vigesimo anno a@étatis meae; tsgaieoac 


79 


wmodetrigesimum sedmcebamur et se- 
Mmueebam us. fats acque fallentes in 
variis cupiditatibus. After his conversion he 
bitterly opposed the system of Manichaeism as may be seen 
from his numerous attacks on it in his Confessions. He 
also wrote many works to refute it, among which are De 
moribus Manichaeorum, De libero arbitrio, De vera religione, 
De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, Contra Adimantum 
Manichaei discipulum, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vo- 
cant fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, De actis cum 
Felice Manichaeo, De natura boni, Contra Secundinum, De 
Genesi contra Manichaeos, Disputatio contra Fortunatum. 
Manichaeism held good and evil to be coordinate and eternal. 

Compare Augustine, De Haeresibus 46: Man- 
Meira Anwod.am Persa exstiterunt, @ui 
taco a niin tr “Mame se)... Ls te: duo’ pri n- 
fupia inter se diversa et adveérsa., ea- 
Heim qiike —<heterna et coacterna, hoc est 
Semper fursse, Ccomposuit:s duasque na- 
mids augue subs tantias., biont scilieet 
Seeitali... OPinatws.e st. Ouarum inter 
Tousen am- e€t cOMmMmixtronem et bon a 
moo pir eat ton em, ret bomi quod? pur = 
Bt omon, poterit, Cum malo'in’ aeternum 
damnationem secundum sua dogmata 
aS eV ofan tes... ... et passim: 


Borat lie potdms, Cleom bro tus in ihac 
amon  Mascnitudin.e -sreperitur, quem 
nemimmee lectio Platonis: libro, ubi de im- 
Mont alttate animae disputavit, se prae- 
enemies madre.dd’ss:e ;d’e€. muti) atq ué ita: ex 
Mane viii e.g s avsusve) (ad eam, quam. cre- 
Gudirt esse meliorem. Nihil enim urge- 
Dates ut calanmitiatis aut. criminis. 

Compare Cie: Tuse. 23484: “Callimachi qui- 
dem epigrammagin, Ambraciotam Cleom- 


80 


b-rot um eS que mm, att -crim;4ens mahi pac- 
cidiss@t sd diwie psi; e¢. muare, sey any imace 
abioapsse Vie cto Platoimts: fi bie: » Compare 
also Cic. Pro Scauro 3. 4. which seems to be the literary 
authority for saying the book was the Phaedo. 

Compare Wact: Div: Inst. 35118. 9:. «qu td: Agnvber ac 
ehotess wibe, (quievcusma | € ujacdiea, (hii bineum 
Prem eis set peaeci pt fem See dedit 
nul bam akvam (ob eats ia m nisi qimvord) “Pilar 
Heinle re digests 


25.1. MS NU haa Cra eiOmves00) Guat aS e, al) tdncrare 
Guescd Gavite. 

See Livy Epit. 114, Florus Epit. 2. 13. 71 sq., Val. Max. 
2.2.14, act. Div, inst: 3. 16..8, Aul.Gell. IN) An a2. 20:04) ama 
14. Augustine probably derived this information from Livy 
114, of which we have only the epitome in which is briefly 
mentioned the suicide of Cato. Here also we may conjecture 
Augustine found authority for writing quod amici 
els “etiam (dioceti qt dam, var 2h wopun are 
fLeri prudeamtiiu's dass uwadeb amt. .tamepe 
cilivotris jquam forttoris, aim) fac qmemns 
CxS Sie) “Coe OL. SuuMerk ia. fof, Apa 3oeucie 


48..10;, .N amos) tile peser aks mb. yeer ota 
CA CSa ksi Vive eg Car “auc tio, howis, ug 
pitudings £1110 [abut oo gq wem, die Cae satis 
Dente ihitatie Om nda "sp erate“ prae cme amen 

The fact that Cato Uticensis commanded his son to hope 
from the clemency of Caesar does not seem to be mentioned 
in the writings of Cicero, Florus, Eutropius, Valerius Maxi- 
mus, Velleius Paterculus, Lactantius or Aulus Gellius. It is 
most likely that Augustine found this inthe 114th book of Livy 
of which we have only the epitome in which we find the words 
interveniente filio, so that Cato’ssom was pre 
sent at his father’s death; and no doubt on this occasion he 
received the above advice from his father. Another source in 
which Augustine might have found this information was the 


8I 


éykopuov Kdérwvos which Plutarch (Vitae, Caes. 54 and Cic. 39) 
informs us was written by Cicero. Compare Aulus Gellius 
Pe2ong MM. "GatOnis., praeboriil Vviri, qui bello 
Gimli Uitied¢ meecem sibi gladio manu sua 
GOmscivit, die: sOulws -~vita hiber est M, 
See womiis pul ins eri batup shaws ‘Catonis : 
of which we are assured by Cicero himself De Div. 2. 2. 3, 
Cato wmosten im horunm lbibroruam numero 
plone midias est, Orator ra. 35 Catone abso- 
luto. Ad Att. 12.4.2 de Catone mpoBrAnua ’Apxipydeov 


eee er tO ten ha 2s ke AG. Ey D2: AT. by 12. 414. 
Pots oj tas 4On 2 Lerete ie pis tolam (i.e: Cae- 
Sarisjad Balbum)> ~multa de meéeo Catone. Top. 


Gu Ga.e Sa 5 Contra Catonem,: me um. Compate 
also Tac. Ann. 4. 34, Quintilian 5. 10. 10 
But itis more probable that Livy was Augustine’s authority. 


So-miga NN av 3S. Veum f tlt wim Yqinit Con tra 
imperium in hostem piuen dav erat, etiam 
Mie torem Vaudabrhiter Torquatus' occidit. 

See Livy 8. 7 who gives a detailed account too long to 
exe.” Cic) De Of, 3.' 31. rr2:, De Hinn. -¥..7. -23.,.prosulla 
fees Vero clarissimtum Virum oeneris 
Westra ae MWomMints wemo  rTreprehend rt; 
Rite rin sirim “vita privavirt uit vin 
Craties.ou fi Trinar ét im pe 61 ume. 

see also Florus BEpit. 1. 9., Val. Max. 2.7.6. Aulus 
Gellius N. A. 9. 13 relates the incident on the authority of 
the older historian Quadrigarius. 


SS ke tamiuum Yor lori aevipsias Cacsaris, 
Mcenauy slp) Om chtytayms  Savbir— pia meieretunr,- a t 
Moiese acca f Vdli-xisis'e Me rtuer,) 2nv id? t.. 

Augustine no doubt found this statement in one of the 
lost books of Livy of which we have only the epitome. The 
only now extant Latin source that Augustine could have con- 
sulted would seem to be Val. Max. 5.1. 10 Catonis 
quoque mortemiCaesar audita et se illius 


82 


gloriae inwiadere let illum suaeuinvidasse 
dixit. But Augustine did not make use of Valerius 
Maximus. 

Compare Plutarch, Vitae, Cato 72 ds 8. qxovoe tov Oavarov 
abrov N€éyerar Tocodrov eiretv°Q Katwv, POove cor tov Pavdrov: Kat yap 
€“ol. ov THS TavTov owrypias ePOovnoas, Id. Vitae, Caesar 54 which 
gives almost the same words. Compare also Zonaras, 
a twelfth century writer, who followed and epitomized Dio 
Cassius, Epit. Hist: ro. ro. 13. Also Appian, Bellum Civile 
2.99: 6 d€ Kaicap épy pev of POovica Karwva xadis émdeifews. 

39.22; Nam An tanta victoriay mams it 
pauperrimus. 

Compare Val. Max. 4.4.6. consulibus scrip- 


SMe Sv ilale win ineta ele Wo.” ogaieme JS espetie an 
iugerum in Papa aia hia tbie biact esanve 
ta um! Sse, oO. CC aS 1.0.1, Miquse.” 10 aan een 


mMercennlartium “amo to. amide ir asda cor em 
strumento,discessiss €,. ideo que petere 
Ut Sibi siccess Or mitten et ur Saecdesento 
a; 2). 0-0). BONS Ae-SeS Ct). Ge, ax Ost aCe el etal 
sui alerentur. It is most likely Augustine had in 
mind the lost eighteenth book of Livy, the epitome of which 
gives a brief statement of the victory, defeat and death of 
Regulus. Florus does not mention the poverty of Regulus. 


46.29. S1- Nasica ille “Scipio westwesr 
quondam  ponmtitex viveret; quem sp 
terrore ® bella -Pasricek in” Suscip te aes 
Phrygiis Sacris, Cum Vir o-p tim uscamaec- 
Frere tir, um iy er Ss ues © Ss ¢.n-a t ws,. elevate 

Compare. Livy,29..74-78: PP... Sci pi @nie mee: 


ad isle s.c ern ie mM, 9 st oisd.u m g@uaestorinums, 
i Wd hea ete Nt. <n’ <t-0-ta. icd vist aut © eee 
bO;.0 Tim 0 p t1mu m Jess: 6. 2... oP. Coo penis 


Cm omni busiimatronis OS ti.amal ge pias: 
Sus obvitam-.deaer isqueée ‘eam= scien nase 
accip ene et dap terram. © lat cau et rae 
fet en did im mn a tr omnis... 


83 


mise G 1c. Del Haris) Resp. 137 27: Hac ig i= 
mae vate 'Stadente quondam’ defessa 
Poa Lia nico belle: atque ab! Hanni = 
epee vex ata sacra 1Sta i nhostri-. ma‘- 
HOReeise a GsCitajex Pihbry gia’ Romae contlo- 
Sve mtc. Gude Vir 1s 2ccepit.) qui est 
Piotiws pe ok. judicatus  P. Scipio. 
Compare also Val. Max. 7. 5. 2.; 8. 15. 3. Livy Epit. 49. 


Ate Cede Ss Ciep io, pron tite x om ax 1- 
mms yvester, tile 1udictio totius senatus 
wer (opt rm us, istam?) vobprs “metwens 
ealamirtate m n o.le:biast aenm) wi la tm St Wl mic 
i petit Romani Carthagcinem dirui ¢t 
Gecernenti ut dirueretur contradicebat 
Gato ni". 


Livy was no doubt the source: Epit 49 (ad. init.) inter 
oO renin. Cat Ome mi €it, Sci pi-o.n em 
Persie ain, Guoerkm alter sapien titss tm us 
Minin Civitate habe bat ur alter -op €1- 
mies vit, €tiam a sénatuiudicatus; erat, 
Giwersis certattum sententiis est, Catone 
wuacenee bellum ef ut tolleretwr dele- 
metunque, Carthago, NraiS.c a. | id;1 §/S:Way- 
eerntie, —Also. Plorus, Epit.r. 31. 4: Cato: inex pia- 
Dri odio. .delendam .esse -Carthaginem 
Perec. ie oa liso conmsuleretur pron n,- 
Peaoria Secnpio NastGa- servandam, ne 
Micwtndabphato .emulae oaorbis: luxuriari 
memnwenst asolinmcip er ét. 


See Plutarch, Vitae, Cato maior 27, who has preserved 
the account of Livy:  éxetvo 8’ #8y Kal Bradrepov 76 wept mavTos 
ob Syrore mpdypatos yvepnv amopavdpevov tpocemipwvety “ ovTws 


/ 7 c 
) rodvavriov 5 IldmAtos Sxiriwv 0 


Cal , ‘\ XN x ial } 
Soxet b€ prow kai Kapynddva jr) €tvar 

Lal , “ / 

Naotkas émixaAdovpevos det SuetéAae N€ywv Kal dropawvopevos “ SoKet dE 


pot Kapxydova eiva, 


84 


47. 22. ‘Saevis crucntisque! seditionibus 

The reference is probably tothe agrariae conten- 
tiones of the duo clarissimi ingeniosissimi 
aMantissSimi plebis Romani, vira \ Tiber 
ius and Caius Gracchus. See Livy Epit. 58,59. Florus Epit. 
2. Chaps. 1-4. 


47. 23. deindée mox malarum conexiome 
Causarum <bielWits etiam Civili b us, tance 
Suir A ones -e-duemen tar tan £4ls) Ss. aun oeud Se este 
Li nderet tr, jtawita icnupidi¢ ate spno sie cape 
f1onmum ac goapinaroum fie rv en 6 teat mamee 
GELS) 

See Livy Epit. 69 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 6 sq. 


AS. 17, ‘quod idiem Mipise iwes cer poems 
fe x. Ma xii W'S hy 4. 3 GC auveecaumi at ie rark mae Speamed = 
timc om's tr nie re “mo (en tem 4am One. Ones 
position€e et) \cwpiagitate co m presen met 
Derswasitq we Oration € / oF a wisisim) ase eve 
Graeccam Atavetam” vir tieab us) spree 
moTibDws partes ent un ob pene aes 

See Livy Epit. 48 (ad. fin.) cum locatum a cen- 
SOs ib ws ‘theatruim €.x"st ruvemie- airs oT - 
nelio Nasite@a anctonreée ftamqu-aa Senate Le 
et noc tunum~: pavbiliict's “me Ti-b Ws! -e xs Cn 
ues "cromes tito, 8d-ers st mae itm: es, t" SAllisos aie 


Max. 2. 4. 1. sq. No doubt Augustine’s authority was the 
now lost forty-eight book of Livy. 


4S.(25. Ut werbis eius .commopa;,se nme 
foria Pir Ory aid emer 2 et lau S, mu) bis ell Acad, 
quibus ad horam congestis tn dudorum 
Spec taco) 4am: UWti-¢ iV i tase Core preweeee 
deine eps ips on tb ere t a.d pmanie 

See Livy Epit. 48 (adfin.) populusque aliquam- 
diu~st ams Indes Ss pec tia-y Wit isa. ito: 
24.2, CaUuUtum eS tne “q ats) ons be or oe 


85 


Paoswe pas sasi mod leusmibseldlia po smis se 
embemnisivce leubdrors, “Saple Gytiaimes vsel het. 


Zo0G li dwescaen ied ~~ spectacula tur pi - 
Romniem: et licen tia Vid bitatum, non 
Mom im ov tti1s sed deorum vestrorum 
miosis se kom ae nes ti tmt: sunt’. 


Apts OM pio ter 7se d.en dam «corp o- 
mimiepe s tiem ti aml m do.s Sibi S.cjaenicos 
PEeocmbne ri Melb el bia tt.. 9. 6 «Guta populo 
Pewee Os O 6 f Solasean tea ludits: circens1- 
biicsadeueto ludorum scaenicorum deli - 
Gaye ago UD inet fF avit .1n.S.an ia. 

Compareeliviy Yci2.3,.6t. CUM, VIS iM oOrbda nec 
Dbitea Ss. COR Silt1s Mec orp .é, dat yviina, ~le- 
maimgCtWt Vit. thS SoU pers titroneée anim is 
Pade qi uo We SC alii, mM-0;V. a. 6 eis. bse = 
Soso populo—nam circi modo spectacu-= 
Paeme tue mat-—in tera alia-caelestis ina 
Praca nda imstitmti dicun tur, . and id: 
Boece Also Val. Max. 2.4.4, nune cautsam in'st1- 
Boemaortim  ludorwm ab | Origine; “saa 
mepetam, ... Livy is Augustine's source. 


FLOM ee OS isiie-dt imag tae mere tise im t fa wer 
Mieke retiss €t multo imsaniora quam 
Mmimotmant -antea fa‘cere tis? : 

For the fact that great and widespread calamities tend to 
bring to the front the basest passions of men, compare 
Thucydides’ account of the moral effects of the plague at 
Athens (book 2, 53 sq.) The same is recorded of the plague 
at Constantinople in 542, in that at Florence in the middle 
of the fourteenth century (recorded by Boccaccio in his De- 
cameron), and in the Black Death in England in the seven- 
teenth century. 


Boot. oomulus et KR em us as y hum con- 
Beuewisse pewwibentur MM qua quisque 


86 


cron £ aeser Git Cabs Om mn 1 nox ay aha bree eisiciere, 
au ceuve, usage einiteess cir €: asnidjate) gm isle ee 
di Ave ane er ait a td Ss : 

Where Romulus and Remus asylum constitu- 
isse: p.erhibentur it is impossible to Say....sojfat 
as I am aware there is no authority for it, and the statement 
seems to be a pvypovikov duaptnya on the part of Augustine. 

see Livy. 1,-3.5 s0idceud medsey> ce, oviauhea: Su nballis 


Miae nit ado, eSs.ertl> cardi ici.em dia es amit. 
tad ints “Cais a wre tier /e> CO nS toll o cron Greene 
tim wt bes... boca’ qu miusnee asi ee pitis 


descendenti bus” ante) dimes 2 buco, este 
asylum aperit, which account is given of Romulus 
alone after the death of Remus recorded in chapter 7. 
Compare: Florus:Epit.. 11. 6, ¢rat- in. pt o-x imo 
Durc tus); hae 2's ym, fase mt Ge Roo) miataletiasy ie 
Lactantius also, Divin. Inst. 2. 6. 13, says Romulus 
: Seon sti turt as yl usm “also, Velioubats laisse. 
Rom. 1.8.5. _-lt 1s. worth notice that dn DCD uve a (ip: 
223. 14) Augustine calls it asylum Romuleum. 


87 


BOOK II. 


S337 cx Gquoram tmeperirtia tllud quo- 
ives wom tum: | estes Viel ea reso prov erbium : 
Pu wire, de fot > - ‘ea a's a Christiani sunt. 

So far as I know these words do not occur in this form in 
any other writer. The nearest approach is found in Tertullian, 
Apol: 4o (ad init.) quod existiment omnis pub- 
Peches Cc ladis,. Om miS popuharis incom = 
Mra Gee Chis. tbavn Ges e:S5'S. 6) in) a ws acm. Si 
ibe ris sasice ned dt Sin mo en:ia,, si -Nilus 
Mone ese Eid ft 1 a2rva. Si caelum stetit, 
Were hind Movi, Si tames, si.lbes, statim 
Cmnirs tian os, ad teonem aid cla ma twr;and 
mMeeNationes F9/(ad, init.) Si -Liberis redunda- 
merit. Sit Nadas, non red und av it, sv cae- 
Mies ticibtt. (St, 06 Cr ram O.yit, si La Dit tina 
Gea aStawi t.,/sti-famoes a ffi x it). stat im 
Dimium vox: Christianorum merit um (2) 

Compare Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum 2; Sed enim 
cumdicas plurimos conquer: quod bella 
Bee bimintc Suroant, quod lwes; quod fame's 
Vaeviaihete. qCuodgque imbres-¢€t pluvias 
Tene na longa sitspendant nobis imp = 
waht. and disco 3 Dixisti per nos tieri €t 
Hod), Mobis.  debeant Tm putari omnia 
Peco oii ss hme Mundus Qquatitwr et 
meets. Gat Ode dit vie S tri. a no bis: -n7o'n 
eo.lasn-t-u'r . 


Compare also Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 2. 684. 

Pe stmt Gur mew 1s bella exprobrare 
Sits tra 

NEGiiee -@ Uebrlctie mys apo Sit GQ. Wa m-. temp l.o rum 
Sprevimus a.ryags:. 


88 


Compare Augustine Enarr. in Psal. 80. 1 which reads et 
vetws qurdem:, sed.~a tiem-p ort bast Grace 
tianits: Veoe pi t <proyverbwmime, I N-oOms spaeoiee 
Dremurs.. Gnare: acd Cohen asst iano 

Tertullian (Apol. 40) points out to the pagans that mani- 
fold and great misfortunes happened to mankind before the 
introduction of Christianity, « Oiro) vos, ia mstyer @li ag- 
bie nauem +1 dies t nan tie .@ hi r igsyhl gal dave arin 
@uijan tiie clad eS. som biemiy) ert © wm rabrews  iereeue- 
dyer wu nye; 2 Also, AdeNatty 2: er: 


57: 7a) Vee mie bia m us et ta mm esta reriamco 
adulescen ties sad) “sipere taciwieas, dud par 
aq.u.€ Sac mile or wim “Sipe Cita b aeme S (aun 
He p tice eo S).), “avud 17e-b'a..W Ss: S)y Msp Oe ane Ose 
lisa is tur pis.siomas | qead -d'ins..dve.a, pai sad aime 
C Xan is DCD aptivt lhe One a. crt Jano sccnng tae. 

Augustine is here speaking of something which he once 
had seen (Spectabamus) andheard (audieba- 
mus )- and taken delight in “‘Coblecta bai ae )e 
For his former love of theatrical spectacles compare Conf. 3. 
pie ap jhe bream t. mve-! Us spree fia -Cuiulea, eshipe amie 
Eyl Craivn 1 1p: ema imaginibus Mi Sie £1 an Um 
Die a.’ Wom ect) foe ti b US. see Sy me Aon: 
Pare-alsonLact, Div Inst.6; 20. 9/sq. 4 hs, -((s pe c ta can 
Dis puebol tie as)) et die lee tiasmetun et ivbse matress 
Ln tiers ings qitae <q. On 1 aim. Mm a x ima, issue 
iat deta Mee miutea Nvi-bisO rm et aa, C10 tame 
PieuGo Ss Vali mo Ss =] pro tem tis 5 1 mee » viaslsemes 

also Div. Inst. Epit. 58 sq. Tertullian De Spectaculis 


22, -De Pudicitia 7. 


’ 

Roehie PC ids el Ccsvintee Volt» S 1D, 

From Tertullian Apol. 24 we learn that the Caelestis 
virgo was peculiarly an African deity: Unicuique 
etiam (prev inc ia-e- et -civaitatw ssa dren 
esit, utl = (S*y tie ASS ta 1t'e7S% uh ee aaa 
Dusiares, wut “Noritcis Belen ws ae ere 


89 


mmerave: .Gid ejliessittics). s)imeehap. »23) hecalls her i's-tia 
isa Vir go) +Cjare lkesttiits’ pskucvii.arum pol.) y- 
citatrix. He mentions her in chap. 12 and again in Ad. 
Matt 2.6, Cyaekesit is ;A frior um. Augustine as .a 
North African would naturally have abundant opportunity 
of making himself familiar with the rites and with the manners 
of the worshipers of this African deity. 


B7aekts obec ine evel Ch ta ema trad. 

See Livy 29. 14; Catullus, carmen 63; Tert. Apol. 15, id. 
maeNatts a. TO: 

For the immorality of the heathen gods and goddesses 
see Arnobius, Adv. Nationes, lib. 5 passim. 


Boao Neastieam “oSicirpiomem:, “qui <vitr 
Sy petimn Seealesre meat ul te He cht S-'e srt. 
See note p. 46, 29. 


Bon 2h, Stlimerda fru mare. a it Cart lt v3). Pirro = 
hei bu i t. 
See note p. 48, 17. 


EGe 255 Snr eve’ epi, ulea iia +c ele bir aren tar, 
moiasa Omnt Itcentia tumpirtudimum (et 
cere egserauli@a. - Sed: pido miss "et Sh omnes = 
bras E15"), 

All that is known of the Fugalia is derived from 
this passage in Augustine, which seems to be the only place 
in extant Latin literature where the word occurs. The BE 
foot-note reads: Fugalia festa fuerunt Romae 
oa Mm em OT iia m Sexe peel S Oh iis Teco Gam, elt 
Banetsa tae, feu p abil ica e institut a. quaé 
HuemEsie  Chieubir ww ari oO) .crelie bra bia n tur — plo-s-t 
exaee Gc tia, Uleeraninia lila. Dhiseissa mere guess from 
the etymology of the word. Perhaps Augustine means the 
Peer netieo dw ma (pubes is, (eae sur bret yotann 1s 
(Auson., Eclog. «5. 13), but this may or may not be so. 
Saisset says in his note on this passage: ‘‘ Que faut-il pen- 
ser de ces Fugalia? Sont-ce les fétes instituées en souvenir 


go 


de |’ expulsion des rois, comme le conjecture un commenta- 
teur, ou bien faut-il croire 4 quelque méprise de saint Augus- 
tin?” The Totius Latinitatis Lexicon of Forcellini gives 
sub: hove mom én) pp ro:p rium? tad ie © 4a aye 
ganic valb:s 01 ut e-“a dither tiin | sh pata 
nim ; “ta ntaim: ade) isa9 ni fee and a ieerstae 
quae Romae cele Drab antmre Vie uke Meare 
post Ter midalia, jin. pmemoriag “hweadal- 
rum negum, efftsa omni licen t ta tunic. 
dinis,; ut adit sam gis tae s, a2; Civ, Doreen 
correctly quoting Augustine in theword turpitudinis). 


62.35. ‘Outrd adtem hiniclsie nsien int, ho 
Mani iwoeiter es, CUce ro! ties tia tineimeal bans 
Gio 's de jie Sb eS OS wht Scipre 
dis palit am siiatt 


63.5. Steu.t<in eis dem. Dibras; he qa teas 
Aft 1 Cid. WS. 


63.23. “Hvare ¢ “ex. Cicer omais sq near tone 
re pubiitea1ibro,ad verbum ex cerpenda 
ar Distr a: Piss sum. 

All the passages which Augustine here gives from Cicero’s 
Republic have been preserved by him alone. See Mueller’s 
edition of Cic. De Re pub. 4. ro. 11. 


63.8. ‘Cleonem, Cleophoatem;, Dyperbpo- 


iam: 

Cicero had probably in mind Thucydides and the come- 
dians. 

Compare Thucydides 3. 36 ad fin. KAéwy 6 KXeavérov . 
dv Kal és 7a GAAa Bradtatos Tov wodTOv TE TE Ow Tapa TOAD ev TS 
Tore mUBavwraros and 4.21 dvijp Snpaywyds Kat’ éxetvoy Tov xpovov dv 
kai TO TANG miBavdraros Id. 5. 16. also Aristoph. Ach. 289. 
dvaisxvvtos ef Kai BdeAvpds & tpoddra THs marpidos, Cf. Id. ibid 377, 
659; Vesp. 62, 242, 596, 759. For Kleophon see Aristoph. 
Thesm. 805. 

kat KXeopar xelpwv ravrws Sipov YataBayods Id. Ranae 678. 


g! 


For Hyperbolus see Thuc. 8. 73:  “YmépBodov te twa réov 
"AOnvaiwy, poxOypov avOpwrov, dotpakiopévov .... dia Tovypiav Kat 
aicxivnv moXews, also Aristoph., Eq. 1304 avdpa poybypov 
moXityv d&ivyv “"YrépBodov. 


Gsg. in: q ait 

This word both in the singular and plural has two distinct 
uses in the DCD: (1) as a quote-word which Augustine uses 
to show he is quoting the words of an author. In this use it 
is equivalent to our quotation marks in printing or writing; (2) 
a much less frequent use as equivalent to our ‘‘they say,” or 
the Greek Ag€yovow, or French ‘‘on dit,” or German ‘‘man 
sagt.” 

Gevig, Gq wod tn eo quodue dé re pubitr- 
ca libro CxO niin. eam or a fu 1, Aeschines 
mmboniemsies vir elroqwentissimus, cum 
MMBcHScre NS: tra Soe dias actutaviss et, 
emo pup licam  Ccapessivit et Aris tode - 
mum. tt aeicum item actore m “maxims 
MamEreius ia crs ac. belli —-legat tm” ad 
Eutlippum Athenienses. saeépe mise - 
Pun t . 

This is the only place where this fragment is preserved. 
Mueller gives it, De Re pub 4. 11. 13. 


Soe twee Wa. pf a.eS.e 5 tim) bab eo. gq we m 
BiimsGe.modi.rerum peritissimum prae- 
ere .anct., DOUMsion a’ DO Mia. .a numinibus 
Mec usta etiam, Gultus+ diversitate 
iScctmeadat.ut.malos deos -propitiari 
Bmeedubus €t tristibus siupplicationibus 
Mascnat, DoOnoes autem obsequiis Jaetis 
Peirce um dis qualia sunt, ut ipse 
ee elGits Clon Vil. Vila 6-.C.t 1S: fer nia. 

There is some difficulty in regard to the person of this 
Labeo. There were several Labeones. Who is the Labeo to 
whom Augustine here refers and what was his praenomen? 
Other writers speak of Labeo without an additional name. 


92 


We must try to decide on this question by considering some of 
the references to Labeo, and the nature of the works which he 
is reported to have written. There seems to be some con- 
fusion between an Antistius Labeo and a Cornelius Labeo, and 
to one or other of these Augustine refers. The Bened. note 
(ad -h..1), reads, L a bieomes) coc stilt ene (res, aniumas 
Givi Ss) Sieh ential. Clair sed) was) omnia 
d.0:¢,t'1/S Sms, “Aun ta Satauuys, dasbreropn qn a cauaial 
C-ave’s aye Aju eics tee) Vil 1 Ee Om Ase OREO 
sie. tot ugst (za Git qd tat is) 4p .eisitisySeamatas 
de quo hic. Awgusitinws. Augustine mentions 
Labeo also DED IT 14> ‘Heusen! c) Pl a tome: Ala bree 
inter, Semiad € Os: \¢.0-mym- eum Oa mani (PLE aavalcves 
stout <ver cu lemp -Siicut  “Ropmen lame» sie mia 
deos autem: me roibars, anu te.pio nite. ssid 
 ti.O.S,g We, inter ns mirin a condo Ca.t.; wep 
25, .<S e.csun dun, Liab COs dist mere omnyesm 
referring, back to p..66.,,1:. DCD Vill, rirepeating ers: 
DCD IX. 19, ¢ Wont am (non new laos. tio wane sae 
ita, dixerim,,. “dase o ni.co )asn a mee see nGE aie 
base “et Dabeo e€sSt..” © os dem (pret at baeanee 


aD. -asbtdis- Vasmoce 1.0.8 «du Cal 2) alot POC is Relea 
L<asb-e 0° “e tam  d uo,s, ‘dyicc:ijt tam og dscns Sis. 
defunct os ¢. O1eC ur isis er ay IC em, agen 


qiedam sc’ omip ito. 1dieienid-e a‘d) Cor piorr ay sitis 
{S'S Oss! fu Ss Sie srvevmi char en vent » e'0: nist tiiciesesne 
Pirie re vse Vaim: 1;Cors MVErS Ss6 “VG tutors, Shar ienuee 
ita esse f actu m, “donLe-c pos t-e.a” ao me rem 
tur. These citations give us some idea of the character of at 
least part of the writings of Labeo. The only Labeo who suits 
these statements is M. Antistius Labeo mentioned often by 
Aulus Gellius, from whom we learn that he was the famous 
jurisconsult of the time of Augustus. See Noct. Att. 1. 12, 1 
gray adhe wi rei nie! ea pt e midtate ste trip se manne 
qu0rmm drlic em ti's’si-m ¢ “serispisiit weaved 
Atm ti sttu-s! => ray ror sa bt eco” Atm tise epee srs 
qwirdietn (cd laistid its" csi" li aaa pee ee 


95 


Seu WOr oe Xie hemi tf; - 13. 12. 1; a gfammarian, 4. 2. 3 
Sq., 13. 10. 2, 15. 27. 1; he wrote commentaries on the twelve 
PIMeSor. teen LO 00:05. .t 20.00. 03° he wrote on the pr ae - 
Perse Cui inh) org irons he was versed in anti- 
fives lt htenasduc antiquieres altioresque 
penetra vera t. Compare Suet. Aug. 54. 

For the passage quoted above compare Apul. De deo 
Socratis 14 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 142): Et sunt 
MOLnneM inh we x) PO €. diy OT km num € £0. qui 
MMCimin Mec avev Citrhas prom p tis. vel o-c- 
Cw ts Pare .b Ori ws vel Ceres £1 OF 1 biu:s 
MmOCiiMEsee Verna Coa Chl Monit is ve) ri £1 bows 
Paul sdreva<i £. 


Cease wie apuds Cicerone idem 
5S cal pio. Lo qui-tiu rt . 

The quotation which follows is preserved here alone. 
Mueller gives it De Re pub. 4. 10, as Dombart gives. 


SS t77 elias t heeatricas artes diw virtues 
Roma Ned NO Ni) -1.o.ve tat. 

See Livy 7. 2 where is found the account of their first in- 
troduction. 


bp elow non: of Ort ce mG.r a 6 c.on P lato i: “postius 
pidemoa Camda est, qui cum fatione forma- 
Metmdmina lisse, SS CnC iv itas deb eat) tama wan 
BOVecIo Sa hos) Verihtatiis poetas Cens wit 
Wetec. preslialue nm dO. sv 

In book 2 of the Republic of Plato the zomra/ are in- 
cluded under the general term pipyrat as requisite for the for- 
mation of a peilova mod. In book 3, 398, the poets are 
politely conducted out of the state: dmoméumomer re eis GAAnV 
ToAw ppov Kata THs Kepadyns KaTayxéarTes Kal epiw otpeWavtes. But 
in 10, 606 sq., they are expelled without any apology. The 
expulsion of Homer, the rountixwratov and rpdrov trav TpaywdioToLav 
vexes Plato’s heart, but he too must go. 

Augustine’s source is Cicero’s De Re publica. Nonius, 
pousce, Says> Magrullius d@ re publ. bib 4: 


94 


Reo Vier» .e'ordsem, -qu'e aie = Heecn-er sim 
Pedi miji@m) Veron 1s. eto de bait on eee 
PUN MEd Seese anak bee, 1c ex ea it Dre quam 
Sol Dts piste ts ue tt: ComparetGics dice. a eminaern 
Rec he ian tiar a oP la to mye cen Gal ule: eee 


elas, (Cl 1 ta te Gta cn” iene et Ll: Ss KCC 
Gpiim os mores €t 0p fin um Ten. pu ple 
Caaye Sat a ealieim Cae Quiiirae Gr est. also, (ert; cAd 


INGEE 257: 3C rT lim iiatiet es, S0serom wn plo eumdsS 
elam i niari PP latio ee ms ats p's Wi it, de Ome tend 
Sane Core ta twi — Civ ietat.e:  Spiewst.e-ned ame 
Augustine did not read Plato for himself: Cicero is his source 
here. In support of this observe that Augustine has in the 
preceding chapter (13) quoted from the fourth book of the 
Republic of Cicero, and the passage cited from Nonius shows 
that such an account was found by him also in the same book 
of Cicero’s Republic. 


695,;13: “ste wero. et “deo tr um hiatus 
imnim@is ne tuwlit “er Sfweark (Cox Gm pwraquine 
fi ome ta S49 a 1 MVOrS> C1 ap mS neOs i vee 

Compare Plato, Repub. 365 Dsq., 377 D sq., 491 E. etal. 
This also came from Cicero, 


7Or238, hrUus tia, hee. 6 xc hampom tee, {C1 Cre fo ae 
This is preserved only here — given by Mueller and Baiter 
De Repub. 4. 9. 9., as Dombart also gives. 


PY. 19.) Mt tres Solos tlamines “ha begemne 
Eri bus “nary Dts 9 ins tl tu't-o.sy iradeerm 
Lovi, Mar tiralvem: ) Meart1, © ul ii ina Peta 
Ro malo! 

see Livy. 20.2, Slam in ein’ ad's 1d nm Sra 
cerdotem Greavit rns 19 nig ub Sim we ote 
et “eurdili reeiwa sella aid opmian tj) eae 
duos flamines @a@duecit, Mare nn ams 
alterum Owl rane: 


95 


Misa Varro le goo ean dem § Pom pili um 
Meet ecns ve fikaminies, “qui cum omnes 
Bien 2 Stmeuhis. dems COPnomMinati, in 
Mir ls dam ap patremt eu, wt cur sit Mar- 
midis et Oudrinealis. ltaislikely that Varro gave 
all the details from which Augustine derived his knowledge. 


Tissier Om al Mdqiwo t an nos post Romam 
Goma ikta My \ab Athen enisibus mutware no - 
use vewgue,s 5.0 lion's); 

Comparesbivy- 2.30 8 misst beratt Athenas 

iteSesminGatie el Coli t ese Le @esS ss Ol © Ni 1's; die - 
Sic rrbere. 


2s Oa a miev tS yrCilr ou Sith a-c €.d°aré'm_o-= 
Meaieseeine cnets, ce x A DAO Lim ius 2 wert o'r i tia te ise 
Pitt G ues spe= (CO tr ibnix er tt. 

ScewCicWe Dive t4s90.8 Lyowrge us iq u idee m 
Gouin la apcre Cia emo 1/orr um) reem  pra.bel eam 
rexiep eC T-a.vait:.  le.ce-s SUans, «sa C.t Ob ietraitse 
Sepsorelaner ss WD etlkpumice i confi Panay tt) “idssNe 
Daae25.001, ) mec Iacedacm oni orim dis cr = 
Slinam dieam, umquam ab ~A pol limey po- 
Picea tt ae “Guha (a Liy eure o> dat am”. 

The first mention of this story is in Herodotus 1. 65. 


2G. nN Usm-a Pom pt lus... :,..q uias.d-a im 
Bocas eGnluae Gut dicim Leo. nd ae Ci vita ti 
me qi t.a @ ua m SeUifaie 1G 6, Te. Tht... GO nya G. 1 SiSee 


mci inks Cuthd cis mu) ta let iam) Sac f a. 0 m- 
Se Ul t. 

It is impossible to assign the exact source. The story is 
a commonplace, recorded in many writers. 

Comparensivy 1:19. sqs; Klorus pit, 1. 1. 2) 1lhe 
acide t Cacti monias Omnemque cultum 
We or um iim montalium docuit, i1ile pon: 
Meminccus. a totnes. aki OS Cetera que pops 
eld hes Ss ance Tad oped, (Cr eeaey it, EKutrop: Brev. 
Peeeice We he pu 2 b4e 20.5 lds Ns DY 9225.5. 


96 


19..9. Nom tamen perhrhet wr ea secem 
leo es a. sadn 1 1b sa ¢ Cepia sae. 

Vet Elorus-(Epit.1. 1, 2.) says ae. o mim a 
Guasi monwirtu deae Eger tae gto. meas 
bDarbari acciperent, whieh Morus has taken, irom 
Livy 19. 5: Simrudlat (saba seman ydlemae ih orense 
Como 2 SS US “iO Cth esa C'S Sich Se ent soe 
mMonttu. ... Sara -kn sti ture rie Siac ern ae 
hes SUOS “Cling ule) die crm m2 t aequmere taee 


72. 122.) Teavp tyayS ons deb Gieaes, 
See: Livy’ 1; 19.,-Butrop. Brev..4., 2., ) Vali, (Max?) 20 4 aay 
Cic. De Re pub. 2. 7. 12. Livy is the source. 


72, 23, 11 aU G6 S pre Geta Gear lie 
We learn from Livy, Valerius Maximus and Cicero that 
the name of this spectaculum wasthe Consualia. 


4a, 12, p.o8 t xp ul Ss dam se tam. bie mie ees 


S 
recem Tarquintum,.ciiws frlamws Sueme- 
t 


tiam Sb p PO. v4 olen term OLnup mers sre ated 


5 


See NOte Ol. Pp. Bi. he: 


73. t4.. Loin icn’s, Burst us, 2e ounas aisle aie em 
Tax qin i usm Coo |) atin vim, = mika ie end te Ttiee, 
dem [uc re tide, cloves alm ps.aiuym 4. 4b) Oma mH 
ii qeuse 110.016 en, t CV ick Wily, SP in Onp Ene ih _ yore 
Mire et pie Op 1 mse etry erm onl ar Gio 0 eae 
COeFTE Magis trati) 56) ab ds Came = ieee 
Wau yrer re. iin. fCevalctiaetcea pve, inl S.1c. 

See Livy 2. 2., where Brutus addresses Collatinus: hunc 
Pa rnquit, tua veo meta te... Tar iqiiaen dpe 
Mowe metUm, Hee Minim us, “fat em ur, oe bee 
Cisti weges; absolve bDeneiici want aime 
j0ter bine regitm nomen. DLhen adi tame 
se Consulatu, ews que sis youn oils 
Lavigiwim trans | ata 6) ci vitae. cross ces 
Doubtless Augustine has here followed Livy. . Compare also 
Hutrop, Brev. 1. 9., Cic. De Oh 3. 107 Ao: 


9? 


poet Nea coticey Caml hws. «6. .-g ui Velen 
meoeehavissimos hostess populi Romani post 
Peeecncri tied cubic LitMinii micas Stipe Ta Vet... 
Pema) ODitmectakornum, VvVirtutis.suaeé 
Bains lent ia tribinofr am: -plebis reus 
Pc ice Pest ham que | ineratam sensit 
Pin bel Taye ta tole ty it.ateéem, ut. de sua 
aia tio nme Certis sim u's in exp hia m 
MOL te dsisice dene: et -déeceéem mili bus 
Peucma Oo ssciesy eet ibaim damn are tur ,. mol x 
Bee mumund 8G allies vindex patriaée futurtus 
aeTece Ta! £ay-G) 

See Livy 5. 19 sq. For Camillus’ total defeat of the 
Baulssceevchap. 49 me nuntius quidem cla‘dis 
relictus, The only authority Augustine had for writing 
Reeeaao Cstivawin dan make fur \seems to. be Livy, 
who is Augustine’s source for the account of Camillus. See 
misOevial. Nax. | 4.1. 2), 5. 3. 20.5 Aulus Gellius, N. A. 19 
Preece cic, Deke pub. 1.72: -b,,. ld., De domo: sua: 32. “86, 
Eutrop. Brev. 1. 20.; Florus Epit. 1. 7. But whence does 
Augustine get the authority for writing decem milibus 
aeris,? Of the authors mentioned in this note, Cicero, 
Aulus Gellius, Fiorus and Eutropius do not state the amount 
Of the fine. . Livy (5, 32. ad fin.) expressly says absens 
oaecim milibus gravis adéris damna- 
tur. Valerius Maximus (5. 3. 2a) agrees with Livy. So also 
Plutarch (Vitae, Camillus 13) ode tiv diknv épyyny, Tipnpa puplo 
Kal TevrakicxiAiwy aocapiwy exovoev. If the manuscripts are cor- 


. rect we must conclude that Augustine has here made a numer- 


ical error. 


74. Inchap. 18 we have several fragments of Sallust’s 
lost Historiz. See Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiz 11 
and 16, 


(Aa toom Neasiieant. . Cart ha giniem noble: 
Didve oe voe Tr ti: 
Bee Note p. 47, 12. 


98 


7. 285, Divert dein de (p lr aS alae tae. 
de "Sullae, vVitilis sc et en a-q u-e-f.0 eda t a tresemen 


pa blrelae et ali’ “SCP tp tomes. | ian, )aeaeere 
Gonsemtrint, gquamvis “elo qiivo mw lst 
jWeiaal ob zien gi las 


It is noteasy tosaywhothe alii scriptores are. Au- 
gustine seems to limit them to those who wrote de Sullae 
VItLis "Ce temaqgiuse (Fo ed ittat ec med pubiineases 
which would of course eliminate writers like Tacitus, Juvenal 
and Persius. Again he speaks of them as compared with Sal- 
lust “as. €eloquto mul tum tm plate. which now 
ever, according to his view, would not eliminate Livy. Com- 
pare Livy Epit. 88 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 
5. 4 $q., Vell’ Pat.,, Hist. Rom: 2.238." 2\‘sq: ~'Compare Plat 
Vitae, Lysander and Sulla 3. 2, 6 & ovre véos av epi tas émOupias 
ewetpiale Sia THY eviav ovTe ynpacas Od. TiV HALKiav, GNAG TOUS zept 
yapwov Kal codppooivns eionyetto vopxovs Tots moAiTals aiTos épOv Kal 
potxevov, OS Pyot Ladrovorrvos. 

Augustine refers in the words given above to the now lost 
Historiz of Sallust; he was the last literary person, so far as 
our evidence goes, to use the complete Historie, as has been 
pointed out by’ Maurenbrecher (Historiarum Reliquiz. Leip. 
16Of, Pp. 4) 2 © OS tive ius, “Quaro.agds mors sc iimvurcn 
totas” Salil sta) dis tio trast Mee t Asn omen 
tans us) ; 


79052. Sed domi Sard an ap alay Seve, 
Data Vietint? <q. giao ni dam - lire cy iste 
violup tia ti-bws dreds, ut in Vs esprusehine 
Sitio sic riba fecerzt e'a So las ste hyaebreeae 
monrtuwum, quae lrbido eas “et mame 
Veiwwern ect) (hia Ur i eon Gio “C-o'n Sat piste enaaeke 
sce. Cic, De Finn, 2:32. 106, “Corp OF 1 Ss auc 
yolwip tas Si etiam. prac teria weyewce ce ame 
momen tetleoo <cur AUriissoitieesigeo amare 
napallive pig ram ma tam tomer er dicen mdreaee 
ioegmwo alle rex Sy ries Moret mr ieo mens 


99 


Peer um !ibidinum voluptates abstu-> 
mecrsse 1d. 1usc, 5. 95. 201, ©x quo Sardanapalli, 
Parte ht isSisimi oS yriae regis, error ad- 
mmo ricltmr, Gul incidiv iussit im busto? 


aoc en ine O.Glac edi, Guaeque exSat u- 
aetcdgel tbl dO 
Paice Patil tage nt multa et praeés 
ellvayreay, oe hire tia 

BOrasiaeis arlene id.” iene eUetterAL Fr is tvort, Ee lkessy, 
feoDOovise. Mom in regis,sepulehro in: 
scriberes?’ Cicero also mentioned Sardanapallus in the 
third book of the De Re pub., as we learn from the scholiast 
Bieluvenal, Sat vo 362; Sardanapallus rex As: 
Zirconia laxuriosus de quo PFullius in 
maton de republiea Sic ait: “Sardana. 
Mewiaicetite Vitiis multo, quam nomine 
meso rle formior.” Compate  justinus- Epit. 1. 3, 
Wwio says ot Sardanapallus vir muliere corruptior 
Peeve att (Arba Ctus) eum "inter scot: 
Panim rer es purpuras colo nentem et 
M@ieeecabar Ilia bth wy) Cum “m.ollitia.corporis 
Seaeoeculorum lascivia omnes feminas 
anteiret. For fuller details in regard to Sardanapallus 
see J. E. B. Mayors note on Juvenal, Sat. to. 362. 


79. 15. For the corruption of Roman society and its con- 
trast with former days compare Sallust, Cat. 7 sq.: Ib1 
Pau inste vit exercitus p: Ri: amare, 
fone . “Siena, .tabwulas' pictas, vasa 
Mucha Minranri, ea  privatim ac publice 
maaerce:, Gelubra<.spoliare, sacra ‘pro- 
Baaague polluere (chap. 11), Postquam di- 
MizaAtenOnOr! essSégcoepere et eas glorta 
Dinemium pOtLentia sequebatur, he bes - 
Peace ivr tis, paupertas probro haberi, 
mua cien tia pro malivolentia duci, coe- 
pee (chap, 12). Seda bidjo stiWpri, ganeae 


100 


cetentewe cult u's nosh! ma nom ance: Ssie ani 
Vitti “ew lieb tT ia~ pati) mp lemme sep u.cmew 
tiam in propatulo; hahene -.. 2 (chaps. 


79.' 26. a quo ‘(T., Graccho) Stenibit Sse 
TAO tke S (era Ves (C0;650 1-5/5 6 eo ali ages) bese 
This fragment is No. 17 in Maurenbrecher’s edition. 


80. 20.-81. 23. ‘This passage is given in full by Mueller 
in his edition of Cicero as the argumentum of book 3 of the 
De Re publica. 


&r..5. breviem (rei pu bite ec 1 dye. iene 
tion é€ms/quatdixcerat Gam) esse rem apo pure 

See)Cic.. De Re:pub: 4: -252-30,. Les 15 1st ee 
GuitvAfpri.canws. «© es. pub lic a sries. pro-paieen 
popultus antem »njon omnis, ) hionm inna 
Core fu S- ql o.g 160: +m0-G.0 “C0 nye TF ele ast ies see 
CO etn Ss mom It it id ina sy a Se SCO Une Sve sa Satieme ne 
utilitatis €¢om munion€ ‘soCiatus,—telerence 
given by Dombart. 


81. 28. ‘This passage is given in full by Mueller at the 
beginning of, De ‘Ke pubs5. (i a) sper ave ep 'On Se) ite tte 
libri). It has not been noticed by Dombart. 


82: 21.0 Haec Cicero fate bia tu. (acineee 
quidem Jp Ost amjgo-mt eo. At mic ani), q ulema 
Sais da bwivs «fatedit. idsé <5 €: pa-blii c ala erocee 
[ah SSS 

Africanus died 129 B. C.; Cicero’s De Re publica was 
written 54 B. C. 


83. 1. Mueller gives this passage as one of the Frag- 
menta incertae sedis of the third book of Cicero’s Republic. 


84.3. quas deorum “lei es at iieiaatae 
datas Contemps erin t) Giatc hi meee 
EProOomup is ‘custe ta + 1 ibratn emer 


Io! 


See Livy Epit. 58 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 1 sq., Sall. Jug. 42, 
Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 2 sq., who says of the murder of Ti- 
berius Gracchus hoc initium in urbe Roma 
civilis Sanouinis ¢ladiorumque impuni- 
mawivss tou 1 €.. 'Gompare Val) Max: 3. 2..17,) 7:2.) 6. 


Sa aias: Mian us| et Camma et Carbo, 
Mumiite bre lelpa fe ti armia p riots r edie rent ur, ‘c)1,- 
Pep Ay Reed Wish Sy AU MA Gitt, 1S'S T missy SiS.c.e p t’a., jet 
emmundeealetitueay ye € Sita cr ude la wis que; fi ni ta). 

See Livy pit. 77. sq. Elorus Epit. 2.9 sq:, who: says: 
Mittin mets Catisa  ~bie lial. inex pile bt lis 
hom onu'm— Marii fameées,; dum diecretam 
Pilate pa OV ticGiam Sulpicia lege, sollis- 
et art.. and Vell. Pat,, Hist. Rom. 2. 19 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 
So Sq. 


Aer 7eaeeicas de nig, wren Saul kat ii ps e€ ,—¢ wis 
mira memo es facta des cribente Sia ll wsitiro 
Meiesedrise —SCimiplitio ni Deus: hisitoriae. i st 


From Augustine’s own words we learn that he had at 
least two sources of information about Sulla—describente 
Sallustio in the passage before us (compare also p. 75. 
Baan Seri bit Livy ius DCD Il. 24 (pi 87. 18). For 
notices of Sulla in the extant work of Sallust, see Cat. 11, 37, 
51, and Jug. 95, 96. See also Florus Epit. 2.9 sq., Vell. Pat. 
Hist. Rom. 2. 19 sq., Livy Epit. 66-89. 

The work of Sullust referred to above by Augustine is 
evidently the now lost Historiae. It is supposed that Sallust 
started this work with the year of Sulla’s death (B.C. 78), as 
Maurenbrecher gives: Res populi Romani M. 
iaesp edior. © 2 1C-astu log CO nas ult) b uwys<a.c, dein de 
Meine ace t-diomi ges tias com posui, (Frag x.1). 
It is also inferred from Sullust’s own words in Jug. 95, 
Bone my vi Smee sit, de natura cultuwque 
Sus paulcis;dicegme;neque*tenim alio loco 
Pacers ae « re .b aS; Vd ae tu rt, js uma ss; .¢ tL. 


102 


SiSénDig. .2 & parim-mihi la bero-oredioen tus 
videtur that he said little about Sulla in the Historiae. 

With this date the statement of Augustine vitam 
mores facta descecribentte Stall as tio would 
seem to be rather inconsistent. In DCD II. 18 (p. 75. 28) 
Augustine writes Dicit deinde plura Sullustius 
de Sullaevitiis, evidently also referring to the His- 
toriae. But in each of these cases it should be noted that 
Augustine shows that he had other authorities—a liisque 
(p."84°3),-and"a 171s crip tories fn shea etc? Gsoasrean — 
tiunt (p. 75. 30). No doubt Sallust treated briefly of 
Sulla at least by way of introduction. Compare also Plut. 
Vitae, Lysander and Sulla 3. 2, as dno Sadovoros—in regard 
to the vices of Sulla. 


$4..21." Cwm lon ¢ €.am teiq-tid mont-o ese ee 
rumperentur an tigi. a] (Giadi1s poems 
Capita eto wiaCen Sato. a9 solus Scosklas 
Capitotlin us *remanserat,; q wie ma mm apse 
Caperetuiry Misics alte ma nesicwes a eisai 
M 116 sit “bas saveie 1 a ee mts 

The source is Livy 5. 41 sq. See also Florus Epit. 1. 7, 
Eutrop. Brev. i. 20. 


$5.°14. Qui enim Marium ‘noe vim “om. 
mem “Et ono bile mm, Crime mt 1 ss. mon ne aie 
toremn —“bellorim ei viltam “a tquwes seme 
Fotems « at) -stepmt tems. vem sal fieret 
adialyer u'n t! latt-q'u ie! inet s'e’p ‘ti no "sie Te ome 
suila'tt ‘inMorere tur “sie'n’e’x “nee in? Waa 
Sulit ave fa'turTi-?mro xo wv tet ons ea nirierriee. 

See note p. 84. 5. Florus (Epit. 2. 9. 17.) says: haeéc 
Sot senatus funera “i'n thas eka emis seer 
ids Tan uwarii’mensis ‘sé ptimmia’ id tas Meares 
pump ra dedit: QO wrde tf wtitra ties ae 
num ¢ ons ulatuas 1m pless er? Cempare VelePat 
Hist, Rom! 2)'23\(ad initt): “et ‘sepit Param’ aries 
in DYiorum de'dec u's inert,’ Vows Genito 


103 


MmanmiorOMpLesisus Geqessit, wit vn, bello 
mest was, in) Oto Civibus: infestissimus 
Gane tis que lim patientissimus. Sallust’s. es- 
timate of Marius is found in Jug. 63 sq. 

For the contrast between Marius and Regulus here given 
by Augustine it is interesting to compare Cic. Paradoxa 2. 16: 
Mee vero 2€20 M:. Regulum acéerumnosum 
mec intelicem Mec miserum’ umquam 
Piven pC.veeto . Mari um. vid im us., 
ini hicsecundirs rebus unwus ex for- 
Bima tis) bh ominvb us, adyersis’ unustex 
Tamms awiGis videbaturT, quo beatilus 
BICeeimtOntali nihil potest. “Nreysicis, an 
Same. MeSeks Guan tas vines virtus habeat. 
feo Dies s2eo, Cursenim Mariws tam feln- 
Species SiGupst fin, Um) Cc Onis wl. domw, Suaé senex 
est mortuus? Augustine probably had in mind Livy 
for the narrative, while the contrast between Marius and Reg- 
ulus was perhaps suggested by Cicero. 

Beas. prone: Ut ARisShir at t's: 

Compare Juvenal, Sat. 1. 49, 

Paw cache Gectay act Marvus ’ biibiit * et 

Pamir dis fir atts. 

Here the words fruitur dis iratis occur in 
connection with the name Marius. It is hard to say when 
Augustine penned the words perfrui diis iratis, 
whether he did so independently, or while writing of one 
Marius he recalled the words of Juvenal about another Marius, 
or perhaps bya lapsus memoriae Augustine con- 
fused the Marium novum hominem et ig- 
nobilem withthe proconsul Marius Priscus referred to 
by Juvenal. That Augustine knew Juvenal we learn from one 
of his letters to Marcellinus (Ep.-138, 3. 16 in vol. 2 of BE), 
where he quotes a passage from the sixth satire of Juvenal. 

For the form of expressiom compare Juvenal, Sat. 10, 129: 


Piss ilies "adie isis ge nits) ofa tio que 
SiinLs)t 5 0, 


104 


Plaut.-Mil.Glor. 314, ‘quis ma'gis* dis) inimiers 
natwustleqwam turatquc 4ra.ti si? eMayorimeanis 
note on Juvenal, Sat. 10. 129, gives also Livy 9. 1. 11, Persius 
4. 27, Sen. De Benef. 4. 4. 3, Id. Lud. de morte Claud. 11. 3, 
and one or two others. 


Sc. 24. Regulus, Ca ptivit ate sem wisedite 
Iopia vigiliis doloribws ‘x Cie iat tse 
€ il Of i'd id/s*a maAscacs © 

Dee MOE 125025. 


86: ar. Moet 64 arse nim Romain or wim aru 
dacti'sis i mus qui lq udtnq ue _filators) “c:omsae 
an eSemhia bruset. 

See Cics De Finns 155 F277. 182% 1Q) 4M ete lauis; sqnaa 
tris fidtros: cloms ail es (yd it) ve qua bas sone 
etiam Cens orie Met trad m- pihamt emai 
tum “a-u tie mr -p raie tore mp! <0 's:qeu-e> 45 aalavaoes 
Cel Goat 22, F Ids “Tuase, 2) g5..85, 7 ite tee Wiawis 
tlle honoratis qwat:turow tia seo Malaita 
ZI. i fe -Ccit utreio'd 6m stem po fe Pte s\putuem ors 
consulareées; unum etiam, Cem siorimim pet 
triumphalem; quartum praietorium videret- 
Vell. Pats 1.1, Gq watt mom © fino Ss) sas tee 
om 1ii:si5 ada ltaes Parevtia tas) 7 vendent ant Gumi is 
reliquit (Sipe rs ti teste hromoma itis sameorse 
Motitui,eius léeetum provros tric sss tin 
lerumtwiqta tt uo refills ms inc Om s wanes 
et cens oOrius, alter. coins lari saptieen items 
€onnis ul ng wants ica nda d:alt ws: ic.q, nis mplbayers 
quem honorem adeptus est. So also Plutarch; 
De fortuna Romana 4, kat KatxiAvos MéredAos 6 Maxedovikds yépwv 
bd Tecodpwv Taldwv trarikov exkopilopnevos, ‘Thus we see Augus- 
tine’s error in writing quinque filios against the 
authority of Cicero, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus 
and Plutarch. Probably Livy gave the same as these authors 
in one of the books (16-19) dealing with the period of the first 
Punic war when the Metelli first came into prominence. In 


105 


Epit. 19 a victory of this same Metellus is mentioned. Onthe 
other hand against the above sources and against Augustine 
iaitayen (Ee Nie 7.0 E30 959)" says) Cu m'(s ex 11 be’r ors 
Polimea me met and (7043. 140) multos li be ros 
eu in Gg; aerr e’.. 


Saeriges (Crate) | pie S's TMS: /Olp pres Situs 
Pion e c dmueoello smi sc eleris- prostrat ws 
‘GANS aC We ae 

See Sallust Cat., Cic. In Cat., Livy Epit. 102, 103, Florus 
Eipits 212, Kutcop. Brev. 6. 15, Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 34. 


SOe2IomN a eiusna miserantibu's Mint a xr- 
mensi bus Miaricae déeae im lwco-eius com- 
InMeHEdhatalkSere Sit apt celld On M la. pir.o'S pen are: ti, 
Climc xem mia des pieratiome rewers us in - 
Som maps tm winbenr duxit croudelemt ecru - 
deer lsipsypemme ric itu; m7 

The account as given here is not to be found in Florus, 
Eutropius, Valerius Maximus or Velleius Paterculus. In 
Valerius Maximus we find the nearest approach (2. 10. 6) 
MANU Ga eMnesieyShway uUstye me fm/ari eos t aitre: 7 Ll ayucs 
at! Gon pr emens wim tam et Cons trie t wm 
iura tati necessitate in colum em pra e- 
stiterunt, but he does not mention the goddess in 
whose grove Marius was concealed. Velleius Paterculus 
mentions the goddess, but his account is not that to which 
MUAUSEIMesCeLers.- 6 Mbractus harudine to c1rea 
pendrem™ UMrariircare int quam <s'e  fus tens 
Grouursve Cat anit ds oS Ullace eq tite sa bed t.derat, 
imaescstromim cro lium lore in ‘car¢cerem Min - 
aiimemst tim Tas Sus duumvyiri pierductu's 
ect “(Rom Mist. 2) 19. 2). We may conclude that 
Augustine got his information here from one of the lost books 
of Livy, probably the eightieth, in the epitome of which we 
have mention of Marius’ return to the city and his cruelty, 
We may note that Plutarch gives the same facts to which 
Augustine refers (Vitae. Marius, 39). 


106 


86; 27:,..0 ba oq t-ajmy.'c rue taj, guaiam, inien- 
vilis hos-tilLique im maniom Gls wieto mia 
fuerit, € OS. qui scripsesnunt le gant @gwi 
v.o-l-an t. 

See notes on pp. 84. 5, 85. 14, 86. 23. 


87.17. cum primum ad Ua bem conmina 
Marium castra movisset (su Wlay adie 
Kkaeta ex ta dammed net ef was eo sic ede 
Laivius ut custoairi sre Po Stim us eba rise 
pex volwenrit Gaptitis supp lite tium sm ot- 
fat bls. ies at ea qwae in. an aam.o, .o ui 
hahberet, diis luvantebus imp he vais set 

This was evidently in the seventv-seventh book of Livy, 
which has been lost. In Epit. 77 we read of the first entrance 
of Sulla into the city againt Marius, L. Sylla consul 
Cum exercitm ini wrbiemvenit ef adwersus 
factionem Sulpici ¢t. Mami bun npr aur) 
expugnawit eamq@quer ex pwlhit. 

Compare Plut. Vitae, Sulla. 9: 6 8€ pavris TLoorovpuos 
Ovcavros aitod Katapabav Ta onpeta Kal Tas yxelpas audotéepas Ta 
SvAAa mporéwas, HEiov SePyvar Kal PvddrrecOar péxpe THS payys, ws 
ei pay TavTa Taxd Kal Kadds aite cuvteAcobein tiv ecxatnv Siknv 
irocxetv BovAdpevos. 

Thissame Postumius haruspex is mentioned 
in connection with Sulla in a sacrificial act in Cic. De Div. 
I. 33. 72; see also Val. Max. 1. 6. 4. We may also note here 
that Augustine has followed the authority of Livy as against 
that of Cicero and Valerius Maximus. Cicero (De Div. 1. 33. 
72) makes. tke incident take place ante oppidum 
Nolam., fl o.r-€n, ti sjs}t mya. 5S a-m pict 1 Ue KeiassE Ba 
ce2pit, soalso Val. Max. 1.6.4, qua visa Post nm: 
haruspicis hortatu continuo exercitum 
in expeditionem.eduxit ac fortissima(?) 
Samnitium castra cepit. In these words Valer- 
ius Maximus has very closely followed Cicero. Plutarch, 
Vitae, Sulla 9 (ad init.), gives the same account as 
Augustine. If it is the same incident, as it seems to be, 


107 


that is referred to in all these cases, probably the version 
given here by Augustine, after Livy, is the correct one, 
as it was probably found also in the tropvyyura of Sulla, which 
Plutarch also knew. 


37: 25. "D €inidse cium iesiset in Asia bell wm 
Mies ada bine m.cerens:,opervL ucium, Titi um 
Chae andes Umm; erst va slvowie; qiuloid tes'sce't 
Mii thatLem Ss u penatur wu si; i et sf acttacm 
EVs: 


No doubt Augustine is here following Livy also, but that 
part of Livy’s history has been lost. According to Plutarch 
(Vitae, Sulla 17.) this man’s name was not Lucius Tittus but 
Quintius Titius. os 8 SvAXas atros ev Sexatw Tov oTopvyLaTwv 
yéypade Koivrios Tiztos, ok aarys avip tov év “EXAGS tTpayparevopevev, 
HKE Tmpos avTov Hdy TiVv ev Xatpwvela vevixnkoTa paynv amayyéAAwv OTe 
Kal devtépav 6 Tpodwvios attébe paynv Kal vikyy mpoonpatver évTos 


ddLyou xpovov. 


See AUC ESOS tera. MOM ine Otel ft 6d rey ta 
Mie be mie leit Ss Urals”. a miivecor iim gq de in tueria's 
Civ lin Saw ouin ee) ail Gi sei; tift'e raiim’ mean - 
ciastemmere st tab Seto dieu) =l-o vie: per Sn titi trem 
quieawrmd am “leg fons! stex tae. priats: ise ide 
Merpimnidiate praenwunitrass¢€ wictorpram , 
Ste cmnvcipromrttere détact.u rium se po teisitia - 
Bem .n hula fPecup erairiet ab: iniimiricits “rem 
pn lh Glam muon. sine miwlt.ots'a me wiinte.. ‘Tum 
mene on atts: Su lil“a >. guate *fiormia mrlitt 
weilstarf use niet... 


Doubtless this was found in one of the now lost books of 
Livy and in Sulla’s memoirs. We find it preserved in 
Plutarch Vitae, Sulla, 17. pera S& rotTov dvip tov év rage 
oTparevopévuv dvopa Sarovyjvios avyveyke Tapa Tod Geod réXos oiov ai 
kara Ty "Iradlav mpd&es eueddov eEav. dpdpdtepor dé Tabra epi THs 
éudys ébpaov. ro yap ‘OdAvpmiw Au’ Kai td KddXos Kat TO peyeBos 
mapamAyovoy id€eiv eparar. 


108 


88...27.4)D3€ \ym-die de wim! hv €. nuiNsiste ite elt apienn tem 
pit Ilayjast em e. it bat is acai te-asisie tw distin 
Cap etien va thu lini- 4 e ¢:o.r i sjpsa sm del atousd ayer 
Comonac aureae. Tune Pos tums: agus 


prea elle Pes pion dit p ta .e.era re am ea 
Siem. ti iCart i Vi €t 0rd aim) das sult que mative ats 
iieli.s 1 S70. Ws) Wwe Sie ebriestin c. P Ors? besa, Vpraee Nao 


instie:r val lo: Ser iveuss Cau. ious) d ian) sie dim Peomatad 
waticin andor ¢ ham a ya'tc. A> Biel kom anmum- 
CHGS. > VEO, Wy acc to iicae tra = aie Sub ey = aoetie kik 
Dean die sade catlarsarwm,iessie (Cait o lium: 


Again we have only Plutarch; see Vitae, Sulla 27. 
Oicavros pev yap evOews 7 SieBy wept Tapavta, dadvys orepavov TiTov éxwv 
6 AoBos HPOn..... ev d€ SiAroviw pyoiv oixéryny Lovtiov Geofdpytov 
évTuxev ait@ A€yovta Tapa THs ’Evvods Kpatos moAcuov Kal viknv 
amayyé\XNeav., i b& py omedoevey EeuTempnaba TO Kamitwdvov. Augus- 
tine no doubt got his information here from the now lost 
eighty-fifth book of Livy, in the epitome of which we find 
mention of Sulla’s return to Italy. 


89. 26. in quadam Coanm: paca je; y attra 
p lam 1t1¢, wba n-omm ml t oF po sity cuales Pa cres 
nefaTr ho —p £0 esi e-ic- oma ll 1e ign dep Scipio ext, 
Sie (pt 1s pu e pare Wa Sa Sen fo Nam Gru ei bn 
and this s Ua t Sp rai my) ft nee nt ess’ Ahir ayotomries. 
im Og uce +m wlta «@ Siefy Notydeisisve) ene tipn-t ia iene 
pen ali quot; dw es7 dia Se arc ess pet Ore Usa 
Otae, pug nia w Da idiesit ptt ts woes tag acd ec 
qoaure ty el at ho ma nim) ee (6 4 U0e Um) a tame 
deilla conflictatione ex pi imi; po tenant, 
ivee mre a in t. 


This incident, ‘‘ The Battle of the Demons,” is not men- 
tioned anywhere in the extant works of Livy. Compare Jul. 
Obsequ57 (ax). Lb. Sc ip 1tomewC., SN ow a moee oss, 
pier, Sayddia nia,.tie.m p ot at, inter, (Cyaemanacme ret 
V0, ots mm, 1m ge 0 SS ie Orr ian Somsisea tie 
rumqu¢€ cum horrend.o cl amo rea ie tice 


109 


Boeuievitecrenmtun dwad aei1es-concurrere 
fer mlerecs Cres. her mrraculo interius 
monmsre@cranttr bts vestigia éequorum homi- 
MumrGihe ecu recent ter ~protrrtae heéerbae 
Srmevirngtulta visa. But there can be no doubt that 
Augustine got it from one of the books of Livy no longer ex- 
tant. 


ao, 5 tithes quidam, dum occiso spolia 
ihetandewe het, |-tratrem:nudato cadavert.e 
MeO htedc We te Status bella civilia. sé 
sim thi perimens fraterno corpori 
ae Un x it. 

Scelivy Hpit, 7. tn qwo- bello duo fratres:, 
MuTeiwecx TPO mM Pett Exercitu,. alter. ex 
ata honor am te.S CON CURT erwin. tb) -et 
So VsGhon es poliaret occisum,, ja ¢ nto 
MmapieGicy eee nitt , lam ¢€ nm t.at ion ¢,- edd tia, 
POO e GUS thimekO. Ipse sé supra LoOgum 
transfodit. 


G2-19. .C a.e lies tis. 
SEG HOte Prg7. Er. 


Rogue Vike Or a-v is e't “p hilo s op h ais-t ecr 
TSC A i ee aoa 

A fine touch of amused scorn. Philosophaster 
is used only this once in the DCD, and indeed it is dag 
Neyovevov not only in the writings of Augustine but in Latin 
literature. This is the only instance in Forcellini (where the re- 
ference) Cicc: 7. Vert. ©4 should be Cic.5. Verr. 
14) and does not occur in Du Cange. Even in the above 
passage from Augustine some MSS. read philosophus 
mere alliwus, which, of course, is incorrect. 


fees aoe nine oO bis hanc patriam 
Daaperere suo. 

Both Dombart and Hoffmann have printed these words as 
ordinary prose—not noticing that they are a quotation from 
Virgil Aeneid 11. 24. 


IIo 


g6.5., Ja pis, Capito lin as: 

It is not perfectly clear whether reference is made to some 
stone statue of Jupiter or to some sacred stone on the Capito- 
line hill. Saisset (footnote on this passage) says: ‘‘St. 
Augustin veut parler de la fameuse statue de pierre élevée a 
Jupiter au Capitole. Aul. Gell. 1, 21.” The words found in 
Aulus: 'Gelltus “arezy Towem- lapud ems tinqiaite 
quod sanctissimumiusiurandum habitum 
est... . The classical passage is found in Polybius, 3. 
25, €or. d€ TO Ala ov Tootrov. AaBwv eis THY xEipa ov 6 
ToLovpEvOS TA Opkla Tepl TOV GUVOnKadV, éredav dudcy Syuooia TicTE 
Aéyer Tade, “evopKodvTL pev Toreiv Tayaba: ci dé GAAws diavonOelnv Tu 7 
maga. tavtwy Tov aGAAwy cwlopevwy ev Tats idtars matpiow, ev Tots 
idiots vopors él TOV idiwy Biwv iepOv Tapuv, éy@ povos ExTETOLWL OVTWS 
@s o0€ AiMos viv.’ Kat Tair’ eirov pire. Tov Aiov ex THs xELpos. 
See Tiyrrell’s note on’ “loyvem Wapidem—~itarace- 
on Cic. Fam. 7. 12, where he quotes this passage from Poly- 
bius, and Strachan-Davidson’s note on the same passage in 
his Prolegomena VIII. (p. 73-80) to Selections from Polybius, 
Oxford 1888, 


pa Gat 


BOOK III, 


EOO., 24.) (Ro-mwkum? M artis. 

See Livy 1. 4, Florus Epit. 1.1, Romulus Marte 
meciivietsasy ert, seh €sa, Spi liv ia, Eutrop. Brevs 1... 1; 
Midiatgwise Clim) Reno, f[ratre wno part.” 
Sdare uce 6S t, Cics De Re pub. 2.2: 4. 


It sevit Goctuissimus €orum Varro 
mas teva e Ceo sie, «. .. Paemé fatetur. Sed 
Meenene sicte Calta ti bis "died t ult “ste ov tf 
homwte Ss ebtam si falsum sit, diis genitos 
Ssscrenredame, wt eo modo animus “hu - 
Ma nitsewelwt Givinaée.stirpprs f1duciam 
Semen ches MmMarnas adgrediendas prae-= 
Miteata telus, agcat vehementius (€£ 
Ppawoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius. 
Sven Varronis SéCntentia express a, Sut 
Doe mels ver bis’. 

For this, as for all subsequent quotations from or para- 
phrases of Varro, see Francken, Fragmenta Varronis (Lug- 
duni-Batav. 1836), Schwarz, De Varronis apud sanctos patres 
vestigiis, (Leipzig 1888), and Agahd, M. Terenti Varronis 
Antiquitatum Rerum Divinarum libri I., XIV., XV., XVI., 
(Leipzig 1898.) 


fo2 Gg. KOmManl antiqdutr iin stupro detec- 
BicmevOe Ss tale Sacerdo tes vivas €tiam de- 
ford: ive brant’. 

Beeelivyn 2.842, Ei Sis. 7, pit. 2.063. ~ Compare 
Jerome’s Chronicle of Eusebius 2, (vol. 8, col. 384 in BE) 
WMieroevestalis! (Sunmia denprehensa in 
MEtnpero Viva “die fossa ‘est... Servius on Verg: 
Aen. 11.206. The best account of the death of a supposed 
guilty Vestal is found in the younger Pliny Ep. 4. 11. 6. 


112 


102. Ti a6 Ute fas autem fem inias. 
quamvis-aliqua dammnmatrone. nila tamen 
i Oe tie) erecc te Dia ne. 


This sweeping statement of Augustine is not correct. 
From Aulus Gillius N. A. ro. 23 we learn that the husband had 
power to put to death his wife if caught in adultery. Gellius 
quotes from a speech of Cato entitled de dote: in quaid 
quoque scriptum est im adulterio “ae 
Ores deprehensas ius fuisise macieis 
necare.... De. 1tfle “autem ieci te nia 
ita (Ser ipa ms In asd ull ter ios Ul xo erm 
tuam Si pDrehendissesesin e -iudie 1 ome 
pune necares. This continued until the introduction 
ofthe lex Julia dea di) pew iss tet pind une eae 
passed by Augustus B.C. 18, by which the death of an unfaith- 
ful wife at the pleasure of the husband (sine iudicio) 
was forbidden, anda family court required for such condemna- 
tion. Probably Augustine had reference to Livy 10. 31. 9 
QO. Fabius Gargies. coms a lis iia is aoe anor 
Mattronas ad —p opal m-s tulip cisd a gmat 
pecunia multavit, a reference given in the BE note. 


103: 17 quid miserum commisetat Mium, 
ut a Fimbria, Maritanarum partium ho- 
Minnie plessim oj; everTteretwn) S . . pores 
autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit 
he Cui parceretur atqwe UT 'b em «ote am 
cunctosque in ea homines ine enwiw 
CeOnme pew Vv ib: 


The account of this was to be found in Augustine’s day 
in the now lost eighty-third book of Livy; compare Epit. 83, 
uocbem IJium, quae se po tes hati Sewee 
reservabat, expugnavit ac delevit. Come 
pare Augustine DCD. III. 7 (p. 104, 2), Illi enim con- 
tra, Eig briaam:, portas).¢lageemagity out 
Stullaeuerware nt iatec tam, 1 vieadweme 
Though the epitome does not mention the edict of Fimbria, 


113 


we cannot doubt but that it was found in Livy’s own work. 
This is not recorded by Florus or Eutropius. 


ieee: eevee Sse Or inp pe —.e.6: -i.n.c en sis 
mtb us cum oppido simulacris solum 
Mei aetweae SUD fangta ruina:templi illi-y,s, 
Meecrt Det bLivyigis, pnpescrum stetisse 
Pee rie tiwir. 

The reference here must be to the lost eighty-third book 
of Livy, the epitome of which mentions the sack of Ilium by 
Fimbria. Livy’s description has been saved in Julius Obse- 
dicts son (eco), Vlio 2 C. Fimbria inceéenso 
cum iaedes quoque Minervae defflagras- 
pei. ([htenr fudmas Simutlacrum antiquis= 
SrmemM invigqlatum stetit spemque tres- 
PLtutionis coppido portendiat. 


Mn fia Pinan te Fim bria -cecidit 
Mipuiie sit de ere oO Sfetit Mineryae, Sims 
il ac ru mY 

See the two preceding notes. 


ip ak a Gallas apsa Roma capta et 
Mmecnsa est.....ad voeem anseris cite 
femierunt ut saltem Capitolinum <col- 
Tet Qaid rem anse fat, tuere at ur. 

See note, p. 84, 21. 


Roope zOe hives -e.-i-d. in New mi ami! Po mip 1 )i.0:m 
SeecesSOrem Romuli iadiuyvyisse cre- 
Poitie tt tOtLo Treo ni Sti tempore pacem 


imeEpenret ef kani portas, quae bellis 
Mupeweadsolent, clhauderet, eo merit» 
Taulreet., Guia Romanis -multa sacra 


Com stitmuit. 

sees invert ro (ade init), jOui regno, Ate 
Paeitts urbem- movam, conditam vi et 
2fmMis,iure eam legibusque ac moribus 
deagntegro con@ere parat. Quibus cum 


114 


inter, );bieila ~adswes cere - vi Gere st emrom 
posse; quippe effierara malatia ganic 
Mitigandum ferocem populum armor iim 
desuetudine ratus, Lanuam ad in ttm om 
Argpiletum indicem pacis belligue feet 
ayer tus, Ut “in, “arm 1S eS sie eva eeteeane 
clams a's pia cates Citea 20610 es. pm pa ors 


Significaret. -Butcop. <Brev. 1:43, Nusa, Eso 
piliWUSTex creates est qui bellum qirrdem 
nullam wessit.-” Florus; Epit. 2. 2. ssee: mote gp: 
7220. ‘ 


100. a1. (Ou1d er £0 vest iq mo deatiia wa nade 
riagiimtian Brews. myredy met, alld sit Ww Ol tain et or ae 
cinta Miovem, anni; mn tam, Lon? alp ace 
transact Sunt ree namie | iN amas 

Livy gives 43 years and Cicero 39. Livy 1.21.6, Numa 
tres et quadraginta, Plutarch, Vitae, Numa zo. 
GAN’ éxi ye THS Nowa Baorrcias ovdeulav Huepav avewypnevos &POn, Tpia 
d€ Kat TeTTapdKovta ery ovvexas emewe KexNeopéevos. Eutrop. Brev. 
1. 3 also gives 43 years, though the Bened. note (ad h. 1.) 
says he assigns only 41 to Numa’s reign. Jerome’s Chron of 
Eusebius (sub Numa) assigns 41 years. But Cicero (De Re 
pub: 2. 14..27) writes», Site alle cums unidiequad= 
raginta ann os Summa Wo pace lc on conmdn- 
aq ave re gna visi et (Sie. Qui ia mon T enim 
poOtiss1 mum Pol yb i um QS 4t.b Usa quo 
Nemo fruit in, -exquiren dis temp ormnpaes 
dunia oem 1.0%)» kek Cleis iSite) Vv otra In spite of 
the statement above quoted from Plutarch we might get 4o or 
41 years by comparing the closing words of chap. 21 éreAevrynoe 
d€ xpovov ov Todt Tots dydojKovTa tporBiwoaas with the opening 
words of chap. 5 GAAa yap eros dn diarehotvre to Nopa 
Tesoapdkootov HKov amd “Pdéuns ot mpéeoBes wapaxadovvres ert THV 
Baoireiar. 


106. 45. Vix post tam ma) posta nose a8 
ux be scon dita us que vad August mi eps o 


115 


maeno miracwlo unus commemoratur 
mms post primam bellum P'unicum, 
geo” belli portas Romani claudere 
potuertin t ? 


Scoulivy ro, Dis dertnde post Nuamae 
mri chaywsus fuit, semel TT. Manlio 
Somsule post Puniecum primum perfec - 
poo epellum, . =. . also Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 2o, 
vopilerar avedxPar pev aitov orav 7 ToAeuos, KekAciobar dé ecipyvys 
yevouevns. 0 dy xaderov HY Kal omaviws ywouevov. .... anv emi 
ye Tot SeBaorod Kaicapos éxAreicOn xabedovros ’Avrwviov, Kat mpdrepov 
trarevovtwy Mapxov ‘AriAlov kai Titov MaAXiov xpovov od rodvv. 


108. 1 Neque enim aliunde Apollo 
BibenG Un anws. Guim. adversus ,.A c¢cha-é¢os 
Be mendue Atristonicum bellaretur, quad- 
Pade eheyiss.e. Duntiatus est . 


Compare Julius Obsequens 28 (Jahn’s edition), Publius 
Sua suseaudyversus Aristonicum dimicans 
mBectiouise A pollinis simulacrum Cumis 
ciemitmavit per quatriduum. Vates re- 
mom aernwmt Graeciae .forée exittum, 
MtibemGedcuctum esset. Sacritreatum 
PiMemaeomanis ‘donaqgue in “tem plo 
posita. Jahn quotes from Augustine in the footnote on 
this passage. Cicero probably refers to the same (De Div. 1. 43. 
fay cum Ciumis Apollo sudavit. 

The war to which Augustine refers seems to be that men- 
tioned in Livy Epit. 59, Florus Epit. 1. 35, Eutrop. Brev. 4. 
20, and Augustine’s authority here must be the lost fifty-ninth 
book of Livy, as he gives a fuller account than that found in 
Julius Obsequens. Why does Augustine add adversus 
Achaeos? In Livy 43. 13. 4, a similar incident is recorded, 
but it is not the one referred to by Augustine. 


109. 22, fex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capi- 
mont wm fabrieav it: 


116 


See Livy. s 55. Euttop.. Brev. 1. 6, Capitoliwm 
inchoavit. Compare Cic. De Re pub. 2. 20. 36, where 
the aedemque in GCapitolio lLlovi optime 
maximo was vowed by L. Tarquinius, and 2. 24. 44, where 
Tarquinius Superbus votum patris  Capitelii 


LEG teatrione persoly it. It is not clears 


whether Augustine here follows Livy or Varro, forin DCD IV. 
23, where the same building is referred to, Varro is the 
authority (see note p. 174. 30). 


Iog. 23. Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro 
ambrvit ad Romam. 

See Livy fro: 47.7, Fm@ventum ra librrs, Aes- 
culapium ab: E pidauao.. R.ounam sances. 
Sen dtm, atd Epit. 1, Cum pestiFemtia eryttas 
loror rere t.-missr, Leeeti Me Vase cae 
srgntiim Komam ab "HE prttirco -ordaderer— 
hen t. - Livy is tire somce 


169. 25° Mater etiam dewm nese to ime 
a= Eve Ss Sam ate e 
sée Livy 29. 10 Sq. Seenote p. 57. 11 and p: 40s29. 


tio, I. Cynocephalum, gquitlonge postea 
Mo Celyl it Ce | Amen pak Ore 

Augustine here probably got his knowledge of Cynoce- 
phalus from Varro. In DCD XVI. 8 he says of Cynocephali 
quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum 
Canina- “Capitia catqwe tps e / hat sacciues 
macis,bestias quam homines caoutitemure 
In Tert. Ap. 6, Cynocephalus is mentioned along with other 
Egyptian deities as prohibited from the Capitol. Compare 
Minucius Felix; Octav. 22, Isis perdit usm, ai wan 
cum “Cyn o¢cep halo. ss t.0. 6 t.s¢ ali 1S sorascrem- 
dotibus tuscet, plan git, tag Usipelte. 
MoOx tniwento pasvulo of agcdet bos ee 
ultant-sacerdotes, Cy no cep hat ic..iae 
ventor gloriatur. From the passage quoted above 
from Augustine (DCD XVI. 8), Cynocephali seem to be a 


117 


monstrous race of men, and Cynocephalus is also an Egyp- 
tian deity, probably, from the derivation of the word (xiwv and 
kepady), to be identified with Anubis. 

POG tet ev arto diemt , (certos..atque 
ipa efit O'S: 

This was in the 39th and goth books of Antiquities 
BOVGaid pacinta, Sunim) libros: seri p sit 
mnie Ui tatu ny, DCD VI: 3); or in’ the, r4th and 15th 
books of the second division of his work ‘‘de rebus divinis :”’ 
ESviucmny Cll Pp OM pam  .o DSe€quiorum .1n 
Pebies Gil Gestant, dit ipsicusequuntur 
Paumeiii Giltows iste universus cultus 
SMe Je Ghoti primo: dil ceéerti, in 
PLC MNCL, tee C1 ti ia = 2 (DCD VI... 3 contains 
the complete analysis of Varro’s Antiquitates). 


Eee esate eeras Ol O tera pierre nts mo xq we 
SRnehlVeremuur puenarrée Cum so ¢ ér i's, 
MmiLaimaGlienies Hem unia € non dum €x iniwria 
PaMtiies Ee ecrarneel Ieikavt ayer iarm parent um. scan 
Pawine Ciotd tren tur? .. 

Hin ay sho mean i) aru. t é¢:m sto Cero s in tierce 
Mmeokohanc in pro eliis quorum tam filias 
mplexamantur in thalamis. 

Sc€e mete p., 72. 22. 


Mi2ereneek Onl Ulis), de SUuoOr wm iam virtute 
Mencipvernidms LOVE My, OTravit ~Wt, Staren t, 
made tLe iac OCcasione momen S t.a- 
POrtets ot Ny 6 Mi t), : 

Seculuiny mene sd.) Plorus: Dpit. 6.3.1, a tro x: 1 


Pesce tore puena, adeo , ut, Romulus 
owen Ofaret, foedam sworum, fu-gam 
Meneerectc nn Hine, wemplhumwlet Stator. lu- 


piter. Compare Plut. Vitae, Romulus 18. Livy is Augus- 
tine’s source. 

Bicetey Dae tindpes tei 0 1, Wha tim. $©eg em 
Sad nO Tom, So eum megni “Romulus ferre 


118 


COM pHISHS Est. 6... URGE Et 1p So races 
fecto,-Ut mator GCeus” Csset “een am 
solus obtin uit. 

See Livy 1. 11 sq. ° Floras Hpit. & “1 19° "ste =a x 
facta cum Tatio foedusqwe perecussume 
SH uutaque res Mita dicta, ut relictis 
sedibus suis hovam th @rbDem* Wostes 
démigrarent. 


Here Augustine lays the blame of the death of Titus Ta- ~ 
tius on Romulus. On what authority has he doneso? Eu- 
tropius, Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus and 
Cicero do not, in their extant writings, mention the death of 
Titus Tatius. Augustine did not find this account in Livy, 
who thus records the death of Tatius: Nam Lavini, 
cum ad sollémnie Sacrificiinm (eo uy cars 
Set, conturs us facto Interiiertm re we 
can only suppose that Augustine here, in the passion of argu- 
ment, has become too rhetorical and made a misstatement, in 
which he is followed by his contemporary, Orosius (Adv. pag. 2. 
4.6) Titum Tatium, ><. me x )at ans oeirr 
tatem regni adsumpsit ee cid tx 


113. 1. Qu aa, cre bt.a es triacs Roman 
Albani quce ex ereitiis A wernt we tu pres 
que comminutio civitatis! Alba namque 
(10a Sa 2 Ew Os oS t11 7 6. ie oe pa ono 
cata Comidixit, 9... Tain c> 6 y ent Umer ie 
de tergéeminis hinc a2tque inde, fratnapus 
placuitiexpetiri:\a- Roman is these Monae 
tii. ab” Al banis “a tem tres Ct eared 
proces sf Wnt 2.7... 

Sée Livy 1, 22 sd., Eutfop: Brev. +. 4. . Baty the 
reference comes straight from Florus Epit. 13. 1. 3. 
€Exercita AUuventutt pruouvotare. aca 
AT Dia no's, Pitay 6m ~ eve vdieo porn ip em 
populum. Sed ¢tim patra Poebete ate- 
quentibus proéliis “trique com- 


119 


ManiTereltwr.. miss o in compendium 
Dello, Horatiis CWndieat ii sig ye, ttle 
Beet T ince ataue. tnmde fratribus, 
iasiuseaite popplis fata permissa sunt 


ey Augustine seems here to follow closely the account 
and words of Florus. Note Augustine says, utriusque 
Sommom dita) Cig ita tis ;.  Florus. wtrigue 


CoOmminterentur, and the words tergeminis 
teme atqwe inde fratribwus~ are taken ver- 
batim from Florus. 

Compare Cic. pro Milone. 4.7. M.,. Horati, for - 
Psst te Vird. | Gu nondum libera civi-s 


Prem anen Upopuli Romani comittiis 
Popewiains 156) Cm Suga manu sororem 
Sacre Sintec Tipe e td mm fa tere tur,; Id. De. Iny. 
20 20. 79. 


Mate eho namque tlla quam frliws 
Meme de comedy it Ascanius. 
See Livy 1s 3-3, 


rg. 28. Marcellus Syracusanam civi- 
fHetem recolens €ius paulo ante culmen 
et gloriam sub manus suas subito.con- 
ereeatsse COMMUHEM CcCoPgitan's ‘condicio - 
nem flen@go misieratus est ? 

See note p. rr. 1. 


MWe tOy sho fa thor u mM. S oro Lr, 
see note p. 1z3., 1, 


wee, Aiba, wubr Amulius expulsoe 
freatre. 

Beolivw t ¢.ar. pulso tratre Amulius 
Fegnat. Florus Epit. 1. 1. 4. 


mo toe ic Reo muon vader it adu latio 
Bawmosa . Cua pet Dibetur recep tus ia 
eSuaelum: vidermint quidam scriptores 


120 


é oT um “qt Yeum’ pr o'p ter fier 0 Crate mega 
Senatim ats cerp tum esse di xex 0 mt Sse 
ornatamaque “nes cio “ quem™ fulium, rae 
Cculums qui'eu'm stbhi.apparursse diceper 
eum que per Sic populo mandasse 
Roman o {wt fn tern wm ina coles eta, =e 
ACC iderat’ enim: ets olis idieteie tion 
Compare Livy’s account 1. 16., from which it will easily 
be seen that Augustine has not here followed Livy, as the 
latter givesneitherthe subornatum Iulium Pro- 
Gu-lbum ercctthe: ‘svollis defect io, Compare Cic. 
De-Re pub;22: 10. 20. Parorerasl.G: (iva) yeep 
top wlisu pateum quo itt. ia sie) inv idan 
imfteritus, Romuli> pe llerent. in scom, 
tione dixisse fertur a "Sie, “wismym se sisce 
in eo collie Romulum qui mu nic Oni rae 


DAalis, . Oca.) -e Wm, Sibi, “mMyaemind as Sse ames 
populwm -rogaret wt. )s1iDis oO, tome ollige 
delu-brum. fieret > se. <d.¢ um ~ess cage 


Owirinum. vocari, “also We Leeg. nara: 
Though Cicero in these passages does not mention the 
solis defectio, we know from Augustine’s own 
words that he found that in Cicero. Compare p. 117. 21. 
In (Hier Hen saioe vietioy dxaho corre: “treads 
dem.” in qurt, . te ne bras ef ii c yak Sagas 
effecit th Tn theritu” Romalt,.. qmigeede 
Scuratione solts est fatetus, “audtzomernis 
dialogue Augustine may have taken the whole account. 
Augustine’s authority is doubtless Cicero, whom he mentions 
and quotes from in this chapter. Also p. 117. 8. he says 
alti SeTiptores eorum defect dniigsoiles 
ad dtnt ;etiam <subitam “tem pest ahem, 
Here, after he had consulted Cicero, he evidently noted the 
accounts given of the same event by other writers. Livy 
(x. 16) and Eutropius (Brev. 1. 2. 2.) tell of the tempest ; 
Florus (Epit. 1. 1. 1) mentions both the tempest and the 
eclipse of the sun. 





I2I 


Both Livy and Cicero write Proculus Iulius, but Florus 
Iulius Proculus. 


iso peaoaiie Cite edi seC.tel pit Of 6S €/O' T-a m 
demecthion! Soliss add untt 6€tiam subitam 
6 (S oa) fo) SS tee) eS male 


Seewbivy i) 16) 1, Sip htoe Coortal tem pesitias 
CuUmamarMoO fhasore tonitribusque jt am 
drevuss One e oem, -O pres Ua t- nim bo ut Cons pec - 
HM etms  conttoni abstulerit. -Eutrop. 
BLCVGire.— 90 ta (Sub tio tem pestat.e. Klorus 
Epirwe th | O.DIOLe ta, tem p esit.as sol is'q ue 
pee Let ILO ClO MN Se Cf at isO1mi Ss, Sp,ec1e€.m prae- 
Daten e.. 


is eran 25.0 aq. t set aepste (TE ul lus? Hos 
trlins) fullminie-a bis im pt u's e's t. 

Sccukivy dais Oo. Sede ita lon isso | bivcd tata 
Pianos Telieionme -fulmi net 1¢it un clam 
dosmeor, GC O7n£ Pare ta Sysre. — Kutrops Brev..1..4,; fal 
Miike tC tus Culm domo Sma arsit. Jjieromeis 
Chron. of Eusebius (BE vol. 8, col 363). 


Tig 200 exec erp toy Neuimpa ee oO mepiil ior vert 
AguicOm VL aici Oo qd Ul Morbo inter ter u nt. 

Livy 1. 21. 6 does not say how Numa died, but we may 
probably infer from this silence that Livy supposed he died a 
natural death. Florus Epit. 1. 1. 2 likewise says nothing as 
tote manner of hissdeath:. Cic: De Re pub: 2: 14. 27, © x - 
Gessit vita; Hutropias alone (Brev. 1. —3) writes 
expressly morbo decessit; Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 
21 (ad fin.), 6 Nopas éredevrycev od taxelas odd’ aipvidiou yevomevys 
aito THs TeAevTAS, GANG Kara puKpov bro yypws Kai vooov padaKis 
aropapawopevos Os iotopnke Iicwv. 

In regard to Ancus neither Livy (1. 35) nor Florus (Epit. 
I. 1. 4) gives details as to how he died, nor does Cicero (De 
Re pub. 2) 18) 33). Jerome's Chron. of Eusebius’ (BE 
wal. 3, col’ 3660), a@Mextremum morbo periit; 


122 


Entrop: Brey. 2, 5,  morbe periit, ~Bat Jerome 
(BE 8. 359) says nothing about the death of Numa 
Pompilius. Accordingly in both cases Augustine has fol- 
lowed Eutropius. Is it possible that this statement and the 
following (p. 117, 28. 30. 31) were found also in the Horten- 
sius of Cicero, in which was recorded the translation of 
Romulus (p. 117, 21)? 


m7. 28, Tullus, gt Oi<i.- Most alianse 
Victor et.eversor Albac. cum ota, dome 
Sta. fr lind nie .e.0. a rn em ant WS: ensat.: 
Again Eutropius is Augustine’s authority. Compare Brev. 
I. 4, Hl tev bela ep a raw it. Albano: Vola 
feilmine) et 0s); cits Tidsoumee Vcd 
arsit. “Livy gives the same account: wir Poyvis 
sollicifpati -prava religerome . fo lmame 
ictum cum damo ce@naflagteasse (i. 91.79). 


117. 20. Priscus, (Targquanwuse pesessmu 
decessoris, fi11 ois. in tere mp fas ese. 

See Livy 1. 40. 7. The source is Eutrop. Brev. 1. 6, 
per -Amed f4 1 os (occ i suis Ze are oie sues eeeauuES 
Cul 1pse smccesserat. Cie De Ke pubyeser. 3c, 
Jerome’s Chron. of Euseb. BE, vol. 8, col. 357. 


117, 21. Servius 2a) iageecen ers (sn 
TLarguinid Super bijvgpived- sac oe ss et ain 
Be on an Met gt 1 Os Cee. OC curs tis easirn 

See Livy 1. 48. The source is Eutrop. Brev. 1. 7, Oc- 
Gisms est scelere ceneri sui, Tareas 
Same tk tll id ed Gis iere ies. eit ice ce 
GCessetat. of filiae Quam Preah pie 
habebat uxorem. Augustine here makes no mention 
of the participation of Tullia in the act, as Eutropius does, 
and Livy refers to the same, but compare p. 118. 30, generi 
Sui Sce lene mec igmoran te £4104... Jerome. 
Chrou. of Euseb. (Bened. ed., vol. 8, col. 373): Tarquiniit 
SUPET RI, SSGECA Si, SUPE Trans wtemas 





123 


Pun, “se ele re: Oc cre a's’ est Augustine’s lan- 
guage here closely follows that of Eutropius, whom he seems 
to be following as his authority. 


Mowe. d Coma nih iis (Capitolium f.abri- 
cantem. 

Sseevhlonms Epit. 1. <. 7% de manubiis, capta- 
Tim at Ditm tem phim fe xit, also: Eutrop. 
Brev. ct. 8, Livy 1. 55. 7. Augustine here has followed Florus 
or Livy rather than Eutropius. 


mo. Ge Lmcretiace Stup'r'o. 
pee note p. 31. ¥2. 


m8. 1 Ardéeam civitatem tunc oppug- 
nabat. 
See Livy 1. 57, Florus Epit. 1..1. 7, Eutrop. Brev. 1. 8. 


fno,.27%, 10  oOppiao, Trudscu Lo Rogaae 
Wee ino Gguiattworde tC iim, ut fertur, aninios 
privatam vitam qQuiétus habuit et cum 
wx Tre cCONSe nuit: 

See Livy 2. 15. 7, Tarqtinias, - Sp-¢€ omni 
Feagiius incisa, exuleatum| ad gé€ner um 
Mamilium  Octavitim Tuscalum abi1it. 
Florus does not mention this. But Augustine here closely 
follows Eutropius Brev. 1.11, Tusculum se con- 
Pilitn quae Cavitas hon lonoge ab wr b.e - 
ety at Que bi per quattuocndecim.am- 
DOS Ptivetus cum: adxore Conse nuit. 
Eutropius alone matches the words pre av- abs: 
‘Mean ior deed man n.os,\ and cum kore 
consenuit, as Livy and others do not give these 
details. 


m9. 6 per ducentos ferme et quadra- 
Pinta tres annos. 

Livy Epit.1, reg@natum est annis CCLYV, 
while Livy 1.60.3, regnatum Romae ab con- 


124 


dita Witb"e ad bavb! e°rya tasca ducentios 
qu adtageam ta sqii a tt wor; Cic. Dee pub: ease: 
52, Lis "enam 1 € ¢ iis: qiaid'sia Stim al mens 
et Mucentis paulo.) Plorus)Epit: 10, pine 
aeta's sib Teg iib us fait pro pe pea ean mses 
quadringentos which seems to have better MSS. 
authority than the more correct prope ducentos 


quin gia cinta per ann os. “Jerome, Chronsor 
Euseb. “Bened: ‘ed-) vol-s," colt 381; Romanorum 
peges a ‘omulor sep tem “us qe sare 


Daf q 0 im i wane SW pve bru ni, | emi aple to agv eupunnye 
annis CC XA siviex .uteq wi b us d-agn« pluaccrere. 
Ce KARAT (Gale VY C1C ee Lav ae 

But Augustine is evidently following Eutropius as _ his 
authority ; compare Brev. 1.8, Ita Romae regna- 
tum eisat per septem TReacuens annis 
dirce nts: “quad d rae i nitra tcp uns 


Tig: 10, vix ildwd imperiom dmcra! wie 
cinitt ab ur b- “med? a id iliastiary e russe 

See Eutrop. Brev. 1. 8 (ad fin.), cum adhuc Roma, 
ub ‘p lwiri mam, ivi )usque..a-de wqinicaeuem 
Hecimum mil tarium © poss idee t) | and- je- 
rome, Chron. of Euseb., BE, vol. 8, col. 381, vix usque ad 
AVlapidéem Romani tenebant im periame 
If the MS. readings are correct Augustine seems to have made 
a-slipin writingsin toa witeint1 (aby unbie aadas 
unless, of course, he is conscious that he is speaking very 
generally, for “XV.” is certainly int tral viet. 


i19. 26: Nam Junius, Bratws ex homo na- 
[tlm eect. ur be. ¢.o.1 1 €.eam, Wowedamm steam 
GG mien «Col lat im um, 

See DOLE: 73: 14: 


119, 28, ipse (luni us) Bewt ws) ep ala 
cect dit Mmutwis. cum, hosites vuole pips. 
OCELS LS) a Ste. ipso )p rim its? fries) psoas 


am 





125 


Cie ee O NS ) Sivavelgienase tinbiis': \ gq uod: (evors 
BES tituen do Miarqutn io %(cioniuras se colg- 
Norv 6.6 alt. 

pee lbimy ey isisg.. \Cicem ius.) 12) 37.\'S9)) Id: De'Sen; 20. 
74, Florus Epit. 1. 3 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 1. ro. 


P20. geod ai Sece Geom tt fi S* ¢ On, Sa 1 - 
PUMunnedi sa Cain, ts iiss ey, pve © hii, beta r,. 

ihe source.is ,evidently, Livy) 1. 56.72) L.. Tani us 
Eemstslesin hia h Geil tin) ay.VS.OlT Of e: Tie S15. Mat Ws). 
Kutropius gives a different version: Brutus parens 
Eteriprsie, Uiatiq: daiwa (Brev.j1..8., 2): 


f20,r20, COms a! Cwm bri to ‘ore ats est 
Mediu. ue rest fae: i. Tar guint us; Col 
Past 1pm 1S: ; 

pee Livy 12.60) Plorus (Epit) 9. \3, HKutrop:/ Brey.) 1/9} 
Fuser nt, hOwit Ut 2 nn oO —piriimo ‘aby vex pu ls is 
me oi pa Seco-ns a lies byl unis: Brut west Se. 
Sela tq s) Cio) tka tins) mm ard tas we 
CAEL b 1;are« 


iio te fe ttn Su G uo give. . gq van )aona | ikor 
Gum Brut: subrogatus, morbo ante quam 
hem annus terminaretur, absumptus 
Pettit a hi Ny as ern fU Si.) -Grusl, «SU C Ces Sierta,t 
Molvatieno et IM oma tits. - (qd Unie = pro 
Pein coho ihe ret wo Siu fe ctu Ss) fuer ast, 
Doom Dt iuim, Lane newm atquie tartare um, 
Gitcro ns wu Ves gq uinque habuit, -¢ om ple yv- 
Cxtid: Tot 

See Livy 2. 8 sq., also Eutrop. Brev. 1. 10, Valerius 
Reon Gola pa vkaer e tym Eric ip. tin um 
Ome am Si Dieta cit. Uw cre tila eé. pia trem, 
MeO MOTD oO Mone woy1eerum Horati1um 
Beit y iol lume colle cam Si bil is u.mp sit. \ Tita 
PEt Us, ann i's qudmaque consules habuit, 
eum /Tarqui paius Comat as prop ter 


126 


HOME n mE bie scye\Sjsijs;siet,,, Be pt u's; imp s.o ele 
10 PEL1IsSs 6t,-Sp. Luc re tim s,m lon be) anyome 
ty Sy Fe Sesderey, 

It should be noted here that Augustine has followed Livy 
(2. 8. 9) in giving to Valerius the praenomen Publius, as 
against Eutropius (Brev. 1. 9. 4), who gives Lucius, in spite 
of the fact that Augustine had before him Eutropius at the 
close of this chapter (16), though in DCD V. 18 (p. 227. 2), 
where his authority is also Eutropius, he gives L. Valerium, 
thus repeating there the error of Eutropius which he has here 
corrected. 


123.16. (quando) Valerius, comsul aboexe 
Glib WS cet) Sie ravi isd ns Cc ens um) Cap uvtiod 1a 
Cryin. (derive nis a me £0 Creu Siu s  ersptys 

see Livy 3. 18: 


123. i. quand © id emisi'S sjimm iset, a tile ata ec 


vitals) isve-diisttiomnnm  anrakas’ yc mm) Glreyaaariors 
Ath enias (miisis osy-\a d.) Veo si miu tua nedeays 
pala loi la ms pq uae ta | nop pie rele ert ane sets evel 
frame (ples t.7 le nyt ia ge. viidaisit.a tial persieae 

See Livy 3. 31-32. 

123. 14. "pop ulus, cum, fiaimie | lasbrow ace 
Practiect tm —anmionae  paimium omema wit. 
ast -q sue, i) lias fo me: “i myy.a) Wess iC.e-n tie = a paul enna 
Mavelius (di ttia “Sic ie nt) mya lies tundra 
rtmie n tal har ot wis (eS ft, Teo nel, eda dive ites 
CTIMENM IMNGCUrrit wet tus dem ‘pr deq eer 
Post ant t.a, per. (d tetia to Te mL.) Ornament anne 
aetatie daecr €pat um a’ 'O wudnt os eum waeiie 

ONC ret SalliG ENSut uy 

pee Livy 4.12 sq... Klorus pit) 1. ‘17 Cies De sen: 
56, 1d. De Re pub; 2. 297. a9, Id. In ‘Cat. 1. 2.35) Plutanene 
Vitae, Brutus 1. After examining all these sources we con- 
clude that Augustine here followed Livy. 


£23.21. Gitand.o. ,p.estilen tia) mraneamed 
CXOTrta, dis, 1nu.ti] iD us) (pop a leis woman 


a a 





127 


multumque fatigatus nova Kheverd1 si - 
Ber oias gao d myn quam “antéa fecerat:, 
ea ha ben Ghar ‘an ba trait us) 6s ti? 

Brom: Wivy 5. tg aia gir ay S| p.e stil én s qué 
Omni bus: animalibus “aesta's excepit. 
Sees) il Sia aD li pre rac ie iqgu and o \ne'c 


Matsa ec it nis wan vie mire bat ur.) la pris 
SU inhi Lex (Semanus consul tio “adi t1 
ives See tis ten mo, tumc prim dm’ in 


Hate Dea RGOnMea nal faci Oo). 


f2s20. Cian do. p er idire ¢’'é m! .¢ omt bm os 
Atmos male puwsenamdo Crebras et ma g- 
acs.) -¢ lade s apud Vie io's exrerertws 
omanus 2eceperat, Dist per Faria m 
Soman ta nd em! sy bien ire t u'r) “quem 
posted Ciyitas in grata damnavit? Urb 
Snamwt, Gian do Galli Roman céepercunt 
Spo liavy é mu nt imGcen den wn t caeditbus 
ap Lervae © U mt) ¢ 


Brom Livy ; see note p. 73. 21. 


feos Cc wm tla in sen Us) pes tll en tia 
Homie, an ore Mee Im!) ) Sita alae m ) edit, <quja ét 
Pee erour Tus! Claim il bws: vé.x tim ¢ tuys st : 

From Livy 7) 1.35 Maximequie e€am pesti-= 
Lemtilam /insignem mors: quam matu'ra 
mime 2cér bia MF wed fei iit. 


Rove Nae eS ut tile Mitel ial SiC -a Emtie.0.S 
urdos:. . . 3: tnt. alert . 
From Livy ; see note p. 49. 8. 


IAA. alia | priest hem tira gravis ave 
venenis matronarum eaxorta Ccredita 


east . 
From Livy 8. 18, who gives the names of two of them as 


Cornelia and Sergia. 


128 


124.7) ‘quando ins iGhacuidaimiass iam eu iars 
a Samnitibus obsessi ambo cum exerci- 
tu rtcomsales foedus .cum) iis) toedum ace re 
CoM Cat Samet, i tra i bv erqriniit 1b nse eR omnis 
SES Cle nyt 1s, Ob S'ivd, i biuys) d@vantiis) (creitre lance ans ee 
Sis jam is. a liis quiet stpodivart a: (pra va euamune 
testi nt bus’ ‘s\u/b)\ isuieaim 2 ho siti henna 
Vress tm ent 1S) si niga Livs? (mat t.e rie nto 

From Livy 9. 2 sq. See also Florus Epit. 1. 11, Eutrop. 
IBFEV. (2.)\9. 


124.12. quando Cray Piesital emt 
Getceris. laboramtib ws” (mnt i ire ei-aciee in 
Exercitu, Acti lim mine, per ierunt, ¢ 

From ivy vo; 31): in € xer ctu A pe Clas das 
pheno sigqtwe. fu) mani b ws 1 cto s: nin tina 
Bisece: 


124. 14.0 alia intolerabala, Ipresilemtaca 
Ave sic alia pai am “ab: Eepiacd eau rio: iq adsiae mie duit 
eum die wm. Roma a dv 0 cia rie! 7a tquure fardeinir 
bere comp ulsia est), 

From Livy ; see note p. 109. 23. 


124./19. Cum* Cons pif am ti Dus ema oe, tem. 
pore) hiosti bua.s ) La cain sy Br usted Ss Aro an 
net Gib us. tr ws cas wet 4. /Siem.o nabs Grae is 
port m).oO; Wa by seuivsi 4 Weceract a) perme my prt | eos memnyie 
dketindie Ckagm: ip 1 avestio) £6 LO piper €)S\s) Ws cer eae 
Ct tus. Siecp tem) tori s” (cam Allo ap remriee 
Went) Dos? Vevey sma 1a ba mm, “trve dec ian’ mi slaibesee 

From Livy. Compare Epit. 12: © um) Wewnaze 
Romanordm a Gail's S'emonr bows? anit em. 
Pecitt sewsrem ts, ibvell Mio, sob. and Gras as nes 


di cog, h wl Cae ¢ 71 t Ww Sy) (pr ate tome, arian eras 
Cum: “hero md bus ("Ca €.S US) (eisity. iawn ora 
Met CES) Mavenmererenh yn it % Adv ielniS S) MeO Sea eat 


Ec sanvons et Bitetstn ors et Etruscos 








129 


iiGunot: |p Olea tsa econ pl ari bus .d uci= 
bus | bene pug natu oest ; also Florus Epit. 1. 
12, Eutrop. Brev. 2. 10. 

The exact details given by Augustine are not, so far as I 
know, found in any extant Latin author before the time of 
Augustine ; but the account was found in the twelfth book of 
Livy, of which we have only the epitome: the words from 
which (quoted above) briefly refer to circumstances in which 
such a calamity might well take place ; it mentions the four 
nations which were united against the Romans. 


124, 24. post -lbongas et craves Romae 
Sea@itro nes, Guibus ad wlhtimum pl e'bis 
in Faniculum hyo s:ta 1a dil © e;mep! t:iome 
Slerqresisve rato) 4. ite tat oF Cine a nie tant 
Bion te ns ius oq ai. p'levb.e Biel We Oxia) ta 
erode) Mivare is trata "6 x sip i fav it. 

See Livy Epit 11: pile bis pitorp! t.er aes 
Bite Dw post Crayves Tet jo n-c ais: ‘sve'd'1 = 
Mira nke ss) acd, wi-ti mum “sree es sit in’ ‘La‘nire ue 
Mien un. die.” a.) Or," Hor teen's 1:0 “de ta to re 
Ce ciusert.a, Fe Sits tSqvurer fii onephsso?) emai aes 
tratu decessit, and inthis eleventh book of Livy’s 
own work Augustine found his information. 


Toate i Op Hane tam) (op role tarts 
ieee ee rani tare) CO S.C. 1 bre reyn ture 

This is not recorded in the extant works of Livy. But we 
may without a doubt say that it was found originally in the 
earlier part of the twelfth book of Livy, and that for three 
reasons ; jirst, Augustine seems to have followed in this chap- 
ter an accurate chronological sequence, according to the order 
given by Livy, of the events of Roman history (Valerius 
Gomes Uleg jb OC Cus us ——Legatos Athenas 
iaiis.S/O)Si——_p Lia Cec Lum) anno na é pr i.ny um 
Grediwit —— Grotatonrem . OQuintium — 
mov,a lectisternia—per decem continuos 
BeieHVOVS 2). sr a pd aire tos — Galli Ro m,a:m 


130 


ceperunt—illa insignis pestilentia— 
Sic‘atemm mc e's, | “Tu dio's’ —" pies ta Veit t aie io rea wes 
de venenis matronarum—in Caudinas 
fur e¢olas—multTY etiam in "ex ere ftw werd 
fulmine—Aesculapium ab Epidauro — 
CONS PITT anti bus Wie tem pore: hors ti bis 

-.—plebs ad laniculum—Hor't'ensi ws, 
on all of which see notes). This sequence seems to be con- 
tinued also after this event. So then the event to which 
Augustine refers would come naturally after the death of 
Hortensius which was related toward the end of Livy 11 (com- 
pare epit. 11 ad fin.); secondly, asthe terminus a quo 
would seem to be the death of Hortensius, sothe termi - 
ws ad “quem ~ would seem to. be ALC Crisis 
etiam \a (aren tims, Py nro s  owhicheawas 
evidently recorded in the latter part of Livy 12 ; compare 
Epit. 12, Payor hws op a..0& aux yl iam ye aie ne 
tims. hherret, in Wbtadiaa - wiems-te, fieeae 
Augustine informs us that the proletarii were en- 
rolled for .warfare after -multa. bella. juibique 
crebruerunt; and, since this does not occur inithe 
extant books of Livy, what other time could better suit this 
than that described in Livy Epit 12, from which we learn that 
the Senonian Gauls, Samnites, Lucanians, Bruttians and 
Etruscans were in arms against Rome? 

Compare fragment 12 in Hertz’ edition of Livy from pope 
Gelasius Ep. adv. Andromachum: Livio auctore, 
S26.) iS:sim 6 an, Marc Mt bey ex Orth, pve seme 
Kemitta Whiinit'a ihomi num) mii)lica) id espe wd. 
ivmsse¢ atque.éo frequenter wie uw. wet 
Vix €ssee unde allvs, bein cosds: ste me 
porcimus ex ercitus pio tuis siet jardis cami pae 

We should note the resemblance between Augustine’s lan- 
guage above and that of Orosius (Adv. pag. 4. 1. 3) Ro- 
Manos Gut’ quantique hoestes, Ci core 
Strep Seren: PpermetTréen tes Ultima ade mia 
Mecessipas proletarios Qiogq ue inane 





} 
; 


131 


COnceciRe ng CuLerS GmEetOUsiunG Wit) din, wr bye. Se i, - 
per Sutiwe hem daenp mo. is (Causa. vaca bait, 
mgt les tiiaue va dusyerrib eae. Orosius must have fol- 
lowed Augustine here, as Zangemeister admits. 


2A SAe PAUCCHobas by eye ied. my ova)! VT-ar ent dns 
Pay thats SV 

PromiLivy.. "See Epit, 22 Pyrirhwis, ut aux - 
Muitinity) sla remiei msi viiternet, vim It adtiasm 
ment, also Mioras pit. a 12, utrop. Brev..2. 217) “1 
(Giae atts! nae) Pay rr hum ep pire @eim: ; Comni- 
Pik Gthiamos in jawxiltum po pos cle runt. 
Plutarch, Vitae, Pyrrhus 13. 


I2ha,25) |G. Wi sane dhe. yie1b Usk Pleat ero 
Swen Comms wile nitis Sia, tis. urbane A pollo 
SucCe ime oN Mm Ora culum (edidit,, sue se 
APusOne uss. Gua deqruid. acrei1dis set), “ips dr- 
Vii'tese lea beret tr) (at. eon tm.) “Di. oO tier, 
iy ft italive sv deneere fe) )p.OnS1S.¢. ak Om ayn Ogs,-)\. 

Compare Cic. De Div. 2. 56. 116, who quotes Ennius’ 
lintecosiOnste., Ave auciidial -RvO om a 0.0.5 “Vv lune € rie 
posse. This no doubt occurred in the latter part of Livy 
12, as Pyrrhus would naturally consult the oracle before en- 
tering on the war with Rome. From Livy Augustine evi- 
dently took this; first, because all the other events in this 
chapter seem to be taken from Livy; secondly, Augustine 
seems to be quoting accurately some definite source, Dico 
Heme yn nhc.) Wild Cléir és prorsisie’ WR°O masay,0.S , > as 
compared with the line of Ennius quoted above. This is not 
mentioned in Plutarch’s life of Pyrrhus. 


LIQ ieee oti muted Siti a ee (biel lLorum. € tiiam 
Mes ti lemetarcnavis ©xOrta est, mulie rum, 
Nea (pik OSU ameamat wr os ipartus; eder- 
einyta io Tr acvitedkayey “Mm ontaivecpyain tu. ry. 

This event occurred in the war with Pyrrhus (in tanta 
strage bellorum) which was related in Livy 12 (lat- 
ter part), 13, and 14 (former part), and after the introduction 


132 


of Aesculapius to Rome (ubi se, credo, Aescula- 
piwsee xc sa bat, .q wood jane hia ¢ rie nom 
ObStetriciem (profi ieb ater) -) Phish piest a 
lentia mulierum is not mentioned in the epitome of 
Livy, and we know not exactly at what time in the war it hap- 
pened, but we may assign it to Livy 13, which, as we learn 
from the epitome, gives a notice of the first fighting, or to 
the earlier part of 14, which gives the defeat of Pyrrhus and 
the conclusion of the war. Perhaps we might note here that 
in A. U. C. 472, the second year of the war with Pyrrhus, 
Cén's a Sumit) civ ruiimer ciayp ita) dia eve mi tia over 
togintatsep tem miliary dia ciem ta Pvalroanoeud 
d u’o ‘(Livy Epit. 13), andjin A. U.C. 477). clen's a) siumt 
Gia Pl bas em inden dit,.cresnt,a Seip tow aco ion ta 
in am mwa id ae emt a. tice nt aa ta caer 
(Epit. 14)—showing a decrease in the population, doubtless 
owing to war and pestilence. 


625. 16. (Re Cmsdieis: “quo qv uses Sui minigtie ery mien 
fer iab a nt 

This occurred in several pestilences, compare Livy 3. 6; 
301325) 5. 133 4r. 21; but none of ‘these is referred to here: as 
Augustine is speaking of the time of the war with Pyrrhus. 
Compare notes p 124. 31, 125. 2. 


125: 16.) hive misA Wial amvemioria De bis oitcaem 
Incredi bili, ip mani tate: siaiew tems 
nt V.ibiuis | hor réewnedsay Javlitint uw deihnvel ie mia) ai 
foro ‘per dies, quad ta oe int a manentijbags 
Thisb €7r ds Qsu-O.ditel eetvarc 16: .dcubria restau sae 

This is not mentioned in Livy’s epitome, but no doubt 
Augustine found it in the 13th or 14th book of Livy’s own 
work, 


rsices.4, ulla i the e-m ins ven Ss pose ita, 


hen tra qwam dau sae vile eq aam: (mcteletvors 
peremit) Om iae’ eum a fain nem ® alae 
multo gravius te ndiers jext.wr 1) at Te Spee 


ek. ee a 


133 


Putesemte Ave Sicwmlapio, aditum est ad 
Pbk OS shy) tora. Lune ‘ergo “die¢- 
pute Steam ves sencaucam pes tilentiae 
POG palm ft mds: ayerd.e Suuc aC ta.sr mu) t1 “o.c*- 
BMipya tiarseepn viata me tem erent . 

Nor is this incident mentioned in the Epitome, but it no 
doubt was taken from Livy book 13 o0r14 (compare itidem, 
Snob rns tinal epyrmace sem te “Aves c ula pio’). 

T26tpEta Pua icas) bie) Wieshs 2 

See for first Punic war Livy Epit 16 sq., Florus Epit. 1. 
18, Eutrop. Brev. 2. 20 sq. For the second Punic war see 
Mivyaor, wesq..) Elorus' Epit.. 1. 22, Eutrop. Brev. 3. °7''sq: : 
for the third Livy Epit. 48 sq., Florus, Epit. 1. 31, Eutrop. 
Breve 4: 10: 

Wus24- lp sitar al tig Stan t “ex rawetor i tate 
iImbio samy Si biy ld no rom lin divs/a ecu Lares, 
Guo mn c.erlhe brit aus) tinnitier ,cléon tt) mi) atni mors 
Mie ait va neste uitiay fe hic oi, b WS) q w/e) otte m- 
rong) balls eimyemvo in ta’ invevgrihkerce nites pier ie t)alt. 
Ree OV aur ten t4 | eytitiaym promt fiicre.sa ) huvdio%s 
Seuciiarss anheiriss) €t ips oS saibo Pitt o.s) taminit's 
meenonrs um) meliorrb us: 

Augustine might have derived his information here from 
Varro. Compare Censorinus, De die natali, 17.8, Varro 
Censs cayenne us) origin ibia's {lisbir-o) primo 
tea sSerip tum) reliquit. |) Bubitisifarly'certam 
that he is still following Livy, whose religious mind could 
hardly fail to note such events as important. Weshould refer 
the mention of these l1udi_ to book 16, or to one of the 
following books, of which we have only the epitome in which 
this is passed over in silence. Forthe ludi sacri com- 
bare pit, 16, Bratus , munws _gladiatorium 
Me, Omorem id emai n ctl  patris, primes 
edidit. That Livy mentioned the ludi saeculares of the 
Augustan age we are assured by Censorinus, De die natali 17. 9. 


Tag TA 6 ke dra ete enim Ns) wl tram Or €)m 
moavio Pibermm@ho pacne™ omnia urbis 


134 


plana. smbversa Sunt, | alins  impeta 
quasi toercentis in puwlsis >) ad tis’ er-eliane 
stagno GCE Wyk, eG MA ae t aiet 41s atque 


sublapsis. 

The events referred to in this chapter occurred in the 
first Pumic war (primo belle Pia nse o) p17. 2); 
and chapter 19 begins Secundo autem Punweo 
Bee telso.. Augustine found this incident probably in the 
nineteenth book of Livy. The epitome does not mention it ; 
but it is related by Augustine between the disaster of Regulus 
(mentioned in Epit. 18) and the burning of the temple of 
Vesta: Istamijdieindc pes. tiem 1 nas piegmar 
ciosior subsecutus est, which is mentioned 
toward the end of epit. 19. At any rate Livy was un- 
' doubtedly Augustine’s source. 


127. (17. Asijam, idcermde. | pies t ou esn is 
Pern l Chosiom.  smibis'e Cu tus est iqaige Sees 


temp lo, Vest ae non bpe pier ci aint.) Comers 
impetu .exterrietae virgpines ASavera ities 
fia tiarlitla4'% »): enim ia. D yadiloy. Tene es daioiae ae 


berare non possen ti Metell usp omiiiex 
suae quodam modo ‘salhuttrs: oblitiws esta, 
rue mS) a Se MAS tis a bart pa Tee. 

See Livy Epit. 19 (ad fin.): cum templum Ves- 
tae var dienet,,  Carejeqliws Mie tel furs ‘p ome 
titex maximus eos in ee ed 116 Sacra 
rapuit, and this rgth book of Livy’s own work was Augus- 
tine’s source. 


26.007. .)b 1S. » qu. o.g.ue’ . fave em tab Ors) nat 
non “tam narrate bel la- Romana 2g Gam 
RomManwtem imperium faudate instrewean- 
VO aay 

In these words Augustine refers chiefly to Florus whose 
words he at once proceeds to quote. 


126: 10.) Similior victo.duwerit 7ile woman 
vaticdibe 


OF a en 


135 


These words are a quotation from Florus Epit. 1. 22. 1: 
SimelitoL “viet o | sue pop alus: ille> qut 
vicit, which is an additional proof that Augustine used 
Florus as one of his authorities. Dombart gives this refer- 
ence. 


128. 27. De Cannénsi autem mirabiliter 
horrendo malo. 

See. Livy 22. 44. sq, Florus Epit. 1. 22. 15, Eutrop. 
Brev. 3. 10. 


T265025.5 (0b may opi biagh ihe. tan tay in imi 
CO MiMi ia te 0-6. SiS iam Ojmurm, cae de sia tiactas 
Dewey 1} USS Sie) p em heibie t wir. 

Here again Augustine has followed Florus, for Livy does 
not mention the incident. Compare Florus Epit. 1. 22. 17: 
eg uve Wi Gy, Moamimi iy jeix eu C1 tus Ca ers aivaid 
healsie ME. WS alee tarte m:,) domec! Hammad bial 
dnrcerne tamil ti, smo ipran cieh freer rio...’ 


129s ie) UW mdiey a tf .ers| smn Oud 1.0.S" 9 ayn il Ojn om 
aoe orm, Cart hae n erm) mais it. 

See, Wivy 23. 12:. set ion dt Aimy Ve Sit 1 pale 
Caer are. WslSiS Wt | acn) Woes a Uste-O1S)) Ct) tam tas 
Mech vis, fit wt metien tibus:, dim idiam 
Semel tmis, moadios -ex pleisise os im t pgrut - 
Gian nadie tiopme Ss...  Fianmeay ten, tiit. “qu ae op ro = 
DHOnreyeEro est hawt plus fuiss e .modro, 
Florus Epit. 1. 22.18, modi duo anulorum Car- 
Miva invem: im isis. ° Kutrop.” Brey; 3. rr: trees 
Meovdevois « a ntul om wm Pauce or mm. Car th a - 
ginem misit. Augustine clearly follows Eutropius 
against Livy and Florus in the number of modii, for not 
only is the subject matter the same, but the very words tres 
momios anulorum aureorum Cart hag t- 
nem misit occur verbatim in Eutropius. Compare also 
Val. Max., 7. 2. 16, who also gives trium modiorum 
mensuram. Kuhlmann (p. 7) erroneously thinks that 


136 


Augustine has taken this from Livy. (See Literary Sources 
of Augustine, DCD. I-X, page 31). 


12957. Deni que. tanta “Mm ilit om tao mma 
Sect est ut Romani Treros ft aream oO Guu 
proposita inpunitate colli, 6 Femi. 
Se nv te ia.) li bee rytiastie. dom a remit. 

See Livy 23-.14. Plorus Mpit.2, 22.426: inl sae rae 
men tam lrberata ssiervidiwa, Hutrop; beev.<- 
mo (ad fins) = ‘servi, “quod on dan quam 
ante. Mia niuimeissi-set mula tes: te arc tie swat 
Thus Florus and Eutropius mention only servitia or 
sierivii.,) whiletLivyiadds %q'u/1‘c’a/p it ale m: tr aude m 
aus. G Gage (pie carn aves i 1 dia Clarkin wear 
culis essent, which account Augustine seems to 
have followed here, though it should be noted how closely the 
words of Augustine (pi 2207 12)* Sarma’ def wer wae. 
Detracta sunt templis_ resemble those of Florus 
122: 22.7) arn a ntom tera nit ed elt Tate tid es ee 
temap bins,’ while: ceo ft acun.o« wim pir osp ors ets 
inpunitate colligerent_ could not come from 
Florus. Augustine had then the account as given by Livy in 
mind, while at the same time he perhaps had Florus before 
his eyes, using almost his words. 


129. 330:) °¢ Rist. ym) Sta cena tenon as ee 
See Livy 21. 6 sq., Florus Epit. 1. 22. 3 sq., and Eutrop. 
Lew. age 


530. 5. Missi begeati. adh a nmi balem 
i,t jab, jet ws: Ob Sid. 1.0 ne dase eidien 64.4 one 
tempt Cat brain em) pre retinue. 

Comparing this with the account of Florus (Epit. 1. 22. 7) 
it is certain that Augustine did not use him as his primary au- 
thority here, as Florus does not mention the embassy first to 
Hannibal. The source is probably Livy: compare 21. g. 3. 
The same account is given by Eutropius Brev. 3. 7. 3: Huic 
Romani; per legatos deninat1 a venue, 





137 


Pee Ora Satie mente wus) era Gos: | ‘aidimit = 
tegen od watts oR oman ve tiam Cart hag in- 
em miserunt. The words which Augustine employs 
to denote the time spent in sending embassies during the 
siege Dum hae morae aguntur (p. 130.8) may be anecho 
OMbimy2tini 3: Dum, URiO mam 1, tem pws terunt 
legationibus mittendis; this resemblance has 
been pointed out by Kuhlmann (work cited above p. 12). 


TsOn1G; Orc baw Or Veli, none a “Poe mts 
mense adele ta es t. 


Eutropius could not have been Augustine’s source here as 
he does not (Brev. 3. 7) state the number of months of the 
duration of the siege. That Augustine knew Florus here we 
argue from his giving vel nono _ with which compare 
Florus Epit. 1. 22.3 novem mensibus cited in note 
p. 129.30; but he did not here use Florus asa primary source, 
writing octavo vel nono, from which we conclude 
that Livy was his first authority: compare Livy 21 15. 3, 
Oieany Oo Vilvemis.e )q/ aura ml) CLole p tu) my) .O Pp pune 
Mic iecCawmuu mS aoc UM tum. gud dam sic ri-p-= 
sere. As Augustine had evidently Florus before him, as 
we saw from notes on chap. 19, he noticed that Florus gave 
nine months, hence he added vel nono. Also both 
Augustine and Livy speak of Saguntum as a civitas 
Opulhentissim a: (Augustine: DCD p. 130.8, Livy 21. 
m2) 


a0; 145) liam | Cttam saorum caday ert - 
ts a pt On UN Sou pars t a” ipl err lei Die tan. 

This is not recorded by Livy or Florus or Eutropius, nor 
can we point to any authority which Augustine may have had for 
these words. Perhibetur _ seems to show that Augus- 
tine is not quoting, but has merely in mind some story of this 
or a similar siege. 


14259), 5 Culp iyo. 4e einem CO f4,m \a C..c, ui s/ar= 
tioOni bis CessmMncarensgte patria, Guam 


138 


Siasvirtwtie: salvyam et. liberam ( ceddndae: 
im, oppido)Linternensi, egit rediiqg mam 
compleyitgue i(vitam, posit» \imsiign em 
Se it eae ei pyh wim) ad hee an oS oes 
Captus (dreSid ero), italy wt ws s&s siet pels 
hrneatur ime sa ltem: mo rtm oe Ven ine rate 
patria fumrus fieret. 


pee Livy'38:50, 7:° Rovwm a vie tri xv re tor em 
APE Can wm |) é€ x pie lil at 2360 per) Eee osSapness 
Cxro's nis? “Uusvenmts 7 dies) oP 8/7 Sica pout) sien 
kip gare BOs: Qwem elm, iniv id iam mes 
CETL amina CUM stri bunts pro Sp ic emete 
die. lo m:@io re. "prio dsc tay Hoty oct en mien 
COMC ES Sit, “and28. §3.°5s5v iba Lat ela teseuee 
sine desiderio urbis. Moriventem ju ge 
C10) ps0, Loco Sre-pieliri. Se dass s s'er tle i 
tat, MoOonumen tum que “Abi aed vir ean it 
ne fans 1D4) ins ia-e ra fa) pa to ake mete 
see: also Val. Max. 5:.3. 2.D:: e1us@qwuwe volwmmta nan 
Criliti a2acerbitatem mom, tae) tas) ava etme 
fern os tulit, sepuleh ro. So. ins eras 
fubendo “ingrata patria, ne ossa quidem 
mea habes.’ But the source here is undoubtedly Livy, 
from whom Augustine took the words ne. ...in in- 
Crata patria, fusion sy ubivemiect.. 


132.19. D-cinde tune primum per Gmewmm 
Manligm proc¢conswlem die Gal low ra e.chis 
trivum phan tem Ajsiatica lux aria GRoomam 
OM Ni phos te pei or inte psif.. Tune, ean 
Primwim Dectia6f ati. et; pretio sia. sie eae 
cula Vasa perhibentur, tun ¢, aedunc parc 
if OnVAVvaid psaltriae 6€ alta diceme vase 
ne Qurtia 

Augustine seems to have had in mind here the words of 
Livy found in 39. 6. 7. (quoted p. 33 in Literary Sources of 
Augustine DCD I-X). Compare Florus Epit. 1. 47. 7. 





139 


itp ala Cawestmecwam villa lex Viocont a, 
Mee Gi tis: hreite den neem in am face ret, nec 
pnarcam filiacm . 

See Livy Epit. 41: Q Voconius Saxa tri- 
Pungus plebis legem tulit ine quis m wi'- 
Wetem hKeredem ins titueret..' Compare. also 
Cie: pro Balbo 3:21), and De Re pub: 3. 10. 17. 


193. 20. NU mean tin um £0 ed u.s hiorre nda 
i pan Oem iin tia Mea.c wm lo sitmm sv olla ve rant. enim 
Batpeliuedle nGea Weld Jet, Meath Gin, Oe Onn) S alii) S45 tye 
Aww ts aio UT tim oma lum fec era nt). 


See Livy Epieggs Co EL os til ro. Mancino ¢€o n- 
Semest are maui Cra mrt eo -pihl li) 6 x: Cia) ¥ €.a: (6, Vv O.= 
bawenhwiitin . . wt ViCtus enim, a N\am.an- 
Bhi Ss Ctrcasthis x wtus, Cum spes nulla 
Sere nid i te Xe Tacit se Sis\e t., (pa cve moc wm 
eis) Pecit Vonomintosam. “Elorus’ Epit. 1: 44. 5.; 
Eutrop. Brev. 4. 17. The 55th book of Livy’s own work was 
Augustine’s source. 


RAs GUL Onda Mut Dott asters, ie xs) AVS 1 ase 
TPDUs PACS ae ple fe Sti Nan ties, a Calvness 
hOnMm ai nO Sat gue ionen upm) én a bia ti Clomid 
Sis nee odo CS) int 6 ito Ss. uno, dae o7c.cacda 
Mis svtis re t fac t Wm -evsit. 

Sce Livy dipit. 75, iussudue Yeius quidi- 
ied. Civ um Rom a hor min Asia iwilt 
mio wd te brucidatim? est. Florus Epit. 1. 40, 
7: Hutrop. Brev. 5. 5 ; Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom, 2.18. Augus- 
tine’s brief mention of this massacre makes it impossible to 
determine exactly his source—probably Livy. 


£35.) 23... Naum g wie sari tie q.uiaim’ .s.e. a diver = 
sum Romam SOG tka lke Latium com- 
m0. Vv eG € ty; cu neta animalia humanis 
msi Dus smbidita canes €quijasini bowes 
et GQquaeque alia (pecorag sub hominum 


140 


do mind 6. Gisu eriun't),7 (sw bite) se iite raitan ret 
dom esti¢2 6) len ita tis- ob lirta.7. 

An account of this was probably found in the seventy- 
second book of Livy. Julius Obsequens 54 has preserved it 
for us from Livy: cum ex agris in urbem 
Pec Ora armen t aq use) Latina + iatovewe senate 
Straice ho m in um pals Siam At /ave Ta uan mie nica 
iim. tiacnt.a m: -ravbure ml: se io. mie it ai aS Umit wane 
Vastan do "Su os Uho Stile “1m aed nar em eorr 
bellum. Compare also Orosius, Adv. pag. 5. 18. 9, who 
probably knew this passage from Augustine. 


135. 28: Sed@itiones Gracchorumaerarins 
ere 1 Douis” (eex.eMc art are. 

See Livy Epit. 58 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 1-3. Either of 
these authors, or both, may be the source of Augustine’s 
knowledge of the Gracchi. 


136.82 .Po0stiiGracc¢ hin) tal texans, Gacnntie wr. 
fie Ct Ome mo aL awed uise JOD. murs: (Gio tists 
Cri myiliva, “hominwm) o €e 1 -diiisis es ip ens 
ha be tua, 

This was probably found in the now lost sixty-first book 
of Livy though not found in the epitome. See Plut. Vitae, 
C. Gracchus, 18 (ad init.) otros pévroe mp&ros éfovela dixtaropos 
év brareia xpyodpevos Kal KaTakTeivas aKpitous emi TpioxiALors moAiTaLs 


Tatov Tpaxxov kat PoyABiov PAdxKov. 


136: 16. Peéereussorcr Gracehi ip Sis sca mee 
GhaMewm Crave, 6 mat. take .O. aU Pie oun. 
dere consult vendidit. halec enim paceuo 
Galea. Can, PT a Esc eysisyeu tart. 

Compare Florus Epit. 2: 3. 6: . insualtat om 
qt-oq a.e mortis reliqurs @ tf.) ads aca oe 
Sa@nct em ic ap wt trib nn) p Neiba's pre ce us 
Ss OTD Ws auto, iF éypren sat uma © he ssamevmey 
have been found even with more detail in the lost sixty-first 
book of Livy. Most likely on Livy’s authority Augustine 
writes higeic nim pactio caedemy pracecce 


IAI 


serat. This is put almost beyond doubt by the fact that 
Plutarch (Vitae C. Gracchus 17) records the same: jv yap 
TPOKEKNpPUY[LEVOV eV APXH THS “axyS ivoarda.ov xpuvalov Tots aveveyKovoL 
tHv Tatov kat PovAoviov keparyv. Compare also Pliny N. H. 33. 
3. 408 : Ch Mies sep tema edits 9G Gra cic 
Toit USO ne pen dendum caput 
Sis mua cc inst ade Opimium tullerit, 
plLwumbogqwe in’ os  addirto Didsnn ew dive 
HMPOwne ip. -Sttam  Clne lms Cri pse ri t. 


£302 119.) OrGi/Cies) us) ets t | Guim, \fa bie ribs) (Mar -= 
enis, Fan liv dius) c.ounssruy liacr i's:, 

The source was Livy ; see Epit. 61., Vell. Pat. Hist. 
Rom: 2.5 6: Falv ave: c.u's MW Any, Chit 10g. Vey Um 
Pi WeOn se imiat Ole Linn oulvaytis,) test) +1 ./also4 Blut 
Witae: ©. Gracchws 17, 


IQG25. parece s)) Comeco rd hae / facta vels t. 

An account of this was probably found in the now lost 
sixty-first book of Livy; Plutarch’ (Vitae C. Gracchus 17) 
mentions its construction. ‘That some contemporaries of the 
event felt as Augustine did about the erection of the temple 
we have evidence in the words of the inscription which Plu- 
tarch (Vitae, C. Gracchus, 17 ad fin.) tells us some one wrote 
by night on the temple, ¢pyov azovovas vadv dpovolas rove. 


136.4) we US Usa tn Win. a's, ti bpm 1W:s 
eDasSuere tt)  Goadiss (Seri his  ) pir ave;tsoun: 
Comat tO. pliors;t) Mean crs, Daas 0S. .q) Wo rum 
Onin Uta) Spend is€ 1.07mi busy cia.é die\s, iva’m) it ume 
Sata ey lsSySrl i, ayers. 5 

see Livy Eepit: 69 sq). Vell) Pat) Hist. Rom. 2. 12) sq. 
Wale Max so207. senlorus, Hpit. 0. 457. 8. 24 4. -TySQ. ». 2k 5% ¥ 
sq. Plut. Vitae, Marius 28 sq. 


YS.a7. I deqned Cha ssoreiahia “media! ex ars 
Ser dn t, 

see [ivy « Mipit.. 720; Mtealica populi’ .de- 
fece run t Price meters Wiers ti nt Marsi 


142 


Paeligni iM ara.gcini Samo es) lb wea ma 
Florus: Epity,.2.°6, Vell.) Pat.. Hist. Rom. 2.15, Emtrep: 
Brevi e503: 


18.09, bel lum dein de servile us i ¢ ces 
Sti eee eam | ex. op any Ca S'S! ant GS). WeneO ic. meteor 
Minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribms 
quem Jad’ modtm)jbieta um: “sien wiles com 
EeyanCvEste Gh) US) iit a) snes 

In Livy Epit. 56 and 69 there is mentionof bellum 
servile. But the one to which Augustine here refers is 
that of Livy Epit. 95 sq. Compare Florus Epit. 2. 7. and 2. 
8, Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 30, Eutrop. Brev. 6. 7. 


Ex paucrssi mis, ohoc est min as quan 
septuagintay gladiator ib us’. Phere isthe 
greatest diversity in regard to the exact number of gladiators 
who caused the bellum Spartacium. _ Seventy is 
probably a round number here. Livy Epit.95 quattuor 
et septuaginta, ‘with which Eutropius agrees (Brev. 
6.7): Floras, (Epit:,.2./.8., 03) (Spa rit acus” Cuno 
Oe mio. malas) ced fr aictio:, (acem, tani Vandior yeniam 
tried nitia jaiuit.am pliws ‘e11s dem fort umac 
Virus), Vell...Pat.) Hist:) Rom) 2.20.05 ).S/e xa pri iia 
qwatt nies i edt iva) (CiceAd (Att 6425S). amou 
aumarp Liss) yh mug nas, quar nqala Sioa bias. Cum 
Sip.an tac oO. (Ot ind sme Tp rtm: OF oke Tien 
Orosius (later than Augustine byafewyears) gladiatores 
Septuaginta et qwattuwor “(Adv. pag. 5: 24-<4): 
If the MSS. are correct it might seem as if Augustine followed 
Velleius Paterculus. It is true that Florus and Cicero as 
shown above give a number which is indeed minus quam 
septuaginta, but Augustine would not have used 
these words if he had had in mind either the number given by 
Cicero or that given by Florus. 

It is also quite possible that minus quam sep- 
tuaginta_ occurred in Livy’s own work, and that the 
Epitome is a conscious correction from a later source. Com- 


* 


143 


pare Livy Epiten (ade ini ny.) re gn at wim)! e st 
anim ise © © leave) with bivy (1s 60,3. re gna tum 
2an0nos dtween tos, quadiiaginta quatt'uor: 
and Epi) 23) (q@wos ((anwlos aureos) exces - 
Sisse modi -“mensuram tradirtur with Livy 
Bee i2ek Chis aie msm pein) tr) Ss m\ord'10)S\" ex = 


pYesse  Simt,  qurdan (auc tore s’, Fama 
Pemelcine gq Wave (apr Olpo re) vier oO: Test), h amt 
plus hwissie ‘mod 1'o: But against this Livian 


authority it should be noted that in DCD IV. 5 Augustine 
Writes: etnies duces! ha buerunt-)'\(p:) 157.) 26) 
while. Livy Epit. 95 gives only two Crixus and Spartacus, un- 
less we suppose that here again the epitome contains a 
conscious departure from Livy’s own statement. The tres 
duces habuerunt of DCDIV. 5 tells against assum- 
ing Velleius Paterculus as the authority because he mentions 
only one leader (Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 5). 

The best solution is to suppose that Augustine’s authority 
forthe bellum servile was the Historiae of Sallust, 
and that there he found both the tres duces of DCD 
DVe ss. andthe) mtn Wis) gw am sé pt agin ta.) See 
Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiae, p. 146 sq., and frag. 
3- 90. 

resveron ebve hk lal et vil ia. 

See Livy Epit. 77 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., who gives a 
brief account of all the civil wars to the Bellum cum 
An fon wo (6 t/© eo p aitra) Eutrop. Brevi) s5..4sq., 
Pi wow ris <c¢ OMiditare Sie xic en tisimo sex= 
Soest Mose cun do primum \Romae bellum 
Civ tle) commie fb uum ye Siti.) Vell.) Paty list. Rom, 
2. 19 Sq. 

nS. 23) ‘bre lila, pi Tratia rw m0-. 

See Livy Epit. 99, Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 31 sq., Eu- 
trop. Brev. 6. 12. sq., Florus Epit. 1. 41. 

IOs 17s Cap we Oreruany ine con sia lis pon = 
Gperwr in) fos ties. Cacsares ai Fim’ biriia 


144 


domi bws (tra cidarenitur isis; dino. ser as.se 
Pater, Jee, fil ts’, in ( G,omn Ss prec am nat ge 
Ma Ctasren turn,  B-a-ebiiws, jetty JNigian iG ove oes 
UM Color aeti.'s pa risa s vase eri bas wnte re 
hen aC atulu:s haus tien viene n 0 psec. magiae 
Dw Ss im iim i.c Or um. “sbi tir ahve fet. = aMue said 
fel. aangen  (~Deiva lis.4 spkjatee PSS. svie, nvso iy suo 
Obiad*'s wo. Sjajnvget ine sl itlat 6tjoe 0 mi) apisuieues 
auveem iM arid) O-cladl psi elon tinue teint epi wi 
aeule We quibus Sa l ust aunst Mibiuc | dG Seat ec ayaum 
BxO Ww Wiss S.e 6. 

In this passage Augustine must have had before his eyes 
Florus Epit. 2. 9. 14 (quoted in Literary Sources of Augustine 
DCD I-X, p. 43). It will be seen froma comparison of these 
two passages that Augustine either has made a rhetorical in- 
ference\in the words ;u.n.¢.o, trae ti sipansu sitisic@er= 
ibus from the words of Florus per medium forum unci 
traxere carnificum, and has misunderstood Florus al- 
together in the last statement, or, as Kuhlmann has pointed 
out (work cited above, p. 19), there are evidences of the use 
of another historian—doubtless Livy—in the divergence of 
the narrative of Augustine from that of Florus. See Livy 
Epit. 80 sq., Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 24. 

The great difficulty in the above passage of Augustine is 
connected with the readings of Caesares a Fimbria 
or Caesar et Fimbria. The MSS of Augustine read 
Caesar et Fimbria, which reading the BE (1864) re- 
tains. ‘This is also the reading given in Strange’s ed. 1850, 
and the one observed by Saisset in his French translation. In 
the passage from Florus (Epit. 2. 9. 14) by which editors seek 
to correct Augustine the codex Bambergensis, E. III. 22, 
reads caesare fimbria; the codex Palatinus and 
codex Vossianus caesar et fimbria_ which is the 
reading found in the above passage from Augustine. Cae- 
sares a Fimbria isthe correction of Graevius upon 
Florus, and this correction is adopted in the Bipontine edition 
1783, in Jahn’s edition (Leip. £852), in Seebode’s edition 





145 


(Leip. 1821), in K. Halm’s edition (Leip. 1872), in Rossbach’s 
edition (Leip. 1896). Other readings are caesi a Fim- 
bia, caesi ja Fumebria. A.Schott proposed 
Cprteissaircers al Cinmm® wr ca bisa re s) f rat re's’. 
Dombart corrects Augustine from Florus,;s Caesares a 
Rim bala oe lois, 2s ioe Seg ec aetsar é't fim- 
bria mss_v (crit. note on the place); and Hoffmann fol- 
lows Dombart here. Little light is thrown on this subject 
from our extant histories, but Caesares a Fimbria’ 
seems to suit better the facts we know. Fimbria’s death is 
thus described in Livy Epit. 83: Fimbria desertus 
wireeme te tea. gud ard. S utl lam: tira ns 1/éir at, 
PeSease pehewsslt,. tim pe tray it de. servo 
SOM aesbre lis Cle hy dG. m Ut Se OC Chae Te ty, 
and Plutarch—not that we may lay too much stress on his ac- 
curacy as an historian—Vitae, Sulla 25, dpav d€ 6 DipBplas rHv 
petaBodi Kai rov SvAAav as adiddAaKtov SedorKas aitos Eavtov év TH 


orparoTedw duepOerpe. 


TAO 720 POsS.t | Near ty) Gmvad Oras: piri S tu mas 
Hehe cemhisSimas./caedes addit2ae fu e- 
Ra tiene. Ota vO es) al «Moa rdO” (iW yve me 
MEGiuoe *Cyasr bro mye. eva tum duermy (pias, t 1m) Mean 
tanatim, gui Sulla Lim Dente.) Oo 
SOLwmme Vie toriam. jy er um) etiam) 1.p)/s.aim 
desiper antes .Salwtem (Cum cita,.s 01s. a lists 
Gace aMubuugs; imp We. v-e nwt. 

See Livy Epit. 83 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9. 13 sq., Vell. 
Pat: Hist. Rom: 2, 26. 


140. 13: “ODS Ssio etiam) srem ajtinu, dé 1psia 
Galiilga sited Gu aan die. “elagnicye fe, | p reduce a 
Da nt iry asd) yo lead) um, 

Florus is clearly the source. See Fpit. 2. 9. 20: ob- 
Secis.ague Picwhrl a) ys 6 padye. iSiesnja tu  qimia’s 1 
die. Sider C eirie,, G Udoninyeiular emitiu r: e;dsureita:< 


r40. 15. Meu ciia’s Sc7a‘ewv o'la pon ti) Pex 
ast Of Pp ate A Eggs meu n ‘ewe x*t ion x 1 t 


146 


See. Livy Epit. 86: Q. ' Muerus US caevota 
peontifex jimaximus  fLupre nas imiey esi 
bulowaedis |) V esitaeée ) oc ei sus 9 €'s't.-* Blonus 
Epit.5 295,210 Muciis -S.cae vo) ay spomtite: 
V essays | amplex us) amass * amitwim w4ooem 
eodem agn-e, s-epelitur, _ Vell. Pat-chist, Rom 
2, 26, Cic. De Orat. 3. 3. 10, Lucan, Pharsalia 1. 126. Au- 
gustine probably had the account of Florus in mind. 


40: 18... U1 bem) deand ec." S mia aay Lees 
imtravit, @)u-igiey ada pabil acral vom pia 
bello sed ipsa pace saeviem te (sep pcan 
milias>deditornm Yaad ey £1 qu einen) 
NOn pus nando (sed) Ui.u bie mid oO. pmo Ss tiawae 
Wie Fiast:. 

There is the greatest diversity in our authorities as to the 
number whom Sulla thus put to death. Compare Livy Epit. 
S8>. oto, milia, d@Medyrt ticio.- aim mies 
publica, teuwcidavit. -Plorus Epit.j2) 9.) 240 
Guattaor militia, dedrttorum. 1mer mg uo 
Civiaim: any wid lia, (paib lie a. donstiern tc watsuise 


Sie! Val. JMaxs)o.:200 20) tea bo re A even o muess 
6.0 t.riasr Lae? pia © Eas: Sh idem os aam. Js eject tans 
in. pu bai¢ca vil law. s.. «+O ib: ten ain cra eats tas 


Plut. Vitae, Sulla, 30 aya & airds re A€yerv evnpxeto Kai KatTéxoTToV 
oi TeTaypevor Tors ELaxitxiAious. Oros. Adv. Pag. 5. 21. 1, se p- 
tem .milia tune Romanorum  Riomaga 
imterie.cjeru nit; sand 95; 2a. \t,. ) oul a emo 
A hie. Jair Dies. vilce tow. mshi dew ces tria 
mea ddeas D -homhiintd mm) qh scey) “pret ew eat ons 
dediderant contra fas contrague fidem 
dataim 1 ner mes sé cur o sigue co her tec ie 
Seneca (We ‘Clem.)*i.* 12)" 2-2) iq at) step team @ anal 
Ctvilm, RO mano rum .c.0 nt ried da ew Missi. 
Septem milia may have been found in Livy’s own 
work ; if the MSS. are correct Augustine would seem to have 
followed Seneca here who alone gives septem milia; 


147 


but it is better to suppose that he has got confused in regard 
to the number slain by Sulla on his entrance into the city and 
the number slain in battle before that. Compare the two 
places cited above from Orosius. It is very strange that 
Augustine while closely following Florus in this chapter (28) 
should disagree with him here. It may be that Augustine has 
made a mistake. 

TAG 2400 Gs De. Cy cs Ww lleaien \ Sue Serie Tr é twin 
Srigupe MIG Ousa ge SaSte, sanliod iOS) soy We fe) Ut, _e.si= 
WemCmuG Un biss i UpP Oss en typ lim pera re, gq a4 
Met Cuenhod, mit". 

See Plorzus Epity 2.9. 25) iad mone n.t e€ Pufid io 
Wilveeetee mac QuucOushR Cue Mientues at)! (Ss :S.6 Met sana £ 
Pas bm peranrne nit. | Whis as clearly the source, 

10,27.) tabulayilla cum magna grat o- 
abt On ee propo sitia ) est quae) ho min um 
ere bet ovdulen Oridiion es ple n did/o,-e ques tri 
Sere incre t ) Fatt qe (fs e:n-at.O-F fon, oe ci den - 
dorm wmy sare) ip rio.s.e) ni Diemydiorr m my fd.uio)\ m4) lia 
eo nit ime ba t- 

See Livy Epit. 38, Florus Epit. 2.9. 25: proposita 
esta mecvesnis: |i lial stra biuilia, ce ties, piso 
Sawnestris, OL din ts -flore jac’ s.emnvat.ur duo 
apie deer ercotdl Liq) Olt, eM Oot: ti U Die re me tah 11 Vell. 
Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 28, Plut. Vitae, Sulla 31. Val. Max 9. 2. 
1. Evidently Florus is here Augustine’s authority. See also 
in connection with the cruelty of Sulla his epitaph given by 
Plutarch Vitae, Sulla 38. (ad fin.) : 16 de émiypappd gdacw airov 
imoypayduevov katadurety ov Kepddaov eotw ws ovTe TOV Pirwy TIS 
atrov ed ToL@v ote TOV e€xOpv KaKds UrepeBdXero. 

FAY. So. ©) ened agi ice nein vs i nie), f €:7 10, a ni- 
Awe Om) mM ames.) danip il err nit, oll) Man dus 
Momitn és hominem) yiyum quam, bes tiae 
SSOuetine Giisee Cm psemeen Cla Ganvier ra D)1/e Ct wimy 

From Florus Epit. 2. 9. 26: Bae bium sine ferro, 
heute ra ram). in tema as lainic ina tum: 
Here the language of Augustine is an echo of that of Florus. 


148 


B16L Alive Ss ove. lis eRRoss is) eh Sp ae 
ticulatimo mem brs amputa tis in ta ntt ts 
Cru ciatibus diw wiwerev el ope tins (dau 
mer wieyaa citi si es t.. 


From Florus Epit. 2. 93 26: Mariunm; oc wlis 
etie sists? man ibis snd ri busawe eft rac cise 
Servattm alaqmamidsaa Ut) (prere sonomn ie 
menvh ra, “m or et etarr, “Seneca, Dey inane ro vie 
Mearr 1 OF... . 7) VSaw Mila prriare fr i mort a ere cece 
erin ocules, ampwtarr lin en aim!) amiagos 
IU Shit" 1° 9@5tey Gii.aisi (to tireins: / jovc ernrdieapsert 
quote n si’ “vial neta bat: vipiaturllat.t mr \velt7 prea, 
Sin g'ulio s \arcus  Darciearay 4%t & 


141. 8. S:usbhastatac sunt €tiam, tam 
quam villae, ,quaedam,mobibes “ery i- 
Ga itueusy. 

From, Elorus Epit..2. 9..27:, munic¢éipia 1 taliuge 
sp lend tdjtis sim a, s u,b)! hyasptiay v-eonieru nieD 
Sp oleti um ion tie rari a tous P raven e site 
B Lost e.nyt 1a. 


LAr. (19: Ula We FO. Ve Lit sien a svt emtes: adios 
iM Deine tics. YS 4dieo ontiad pots star whe Sct per te lee aie 
dara’. 

From Florus-Epit,J2-9. 26: "Sl mom € mi.) om 
CX pile Na t)7a Wie, oO bisevdrert: “atucrce) ibe.) de ceed 
quo, mo do morte “da minvaty, da ci ube nite 
Sic damn atam <ciiwit.a tem: ussite oa ue 
dieters: 


41.24. Olim Galloru nr et peualo -ante 
GOorhorum inru pition € nr, 
see notes pp. 1. 3 and’ 84. 21. 


14a6 92: Gio th i -wetr ota im) \auhiis Sema 
tari Dus ) pepe fe Geininn ti ut masts im tem 
Siti quedialiqgues, peremer wnt. 


149 


Augustine here takes the milder view of the extent of the 
slaughter. On the other hand compare Procopius De bello 
Vandalico 1. 2. 12: Tous Te dvOpwrous amravras ExTevov aot eyevovTo 
ev TOTW, Opotws pev TpeTBTas dpoiws dé veovs ovTE yuvatkav ovTE Taldwv 
gedouevor: and Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 7. 10, who says that 
many senators were tortured and slain : kati roAXovs THs cvyKAHTOU 
Bovdrs diadhopors Sikats troBadrovres arwdecav. 


Taz er Pope Vyas Crtetronr tt): 
See ivy) E pit. 79; 90 Sq:, Florus Epit. 2.. 10 
Breyer) L,VelloPat. Hist. Rom, 2.30. 


Eutrop. 


, 


CAS OT MD Galil di iso's ion, atoll ly, ‘ae: 
see Cie. In Cat., Sall. ‘Cat., ivy Epit. 102 sq:, Elorus 
E pit, 2. 12, Hutrop, Brev. 6.015. 


Bal 25-8 Lie pi dyig, 7evty “Cat wil 2b enh) wa ms, 
see Florus -Epit. 2. 11, Eutrop, Brev: 6. 1 sq. Livy 
Epit. go. 


142.24", ja deervormupre pe tC aesiatr is) (beam), 
See lors) Epit. 2.63.) Butrop, \Brev.\ 6.) 19. sq.) ivy 
Epit. 109g sq. 


tga Gealum, Caesar em .\. 2. tam qa am 
Mere ted CG me tit Oore mq tor und am no biliwm 
SOmibinivn a tiv ese niat or um (velit pro ined 
PLM e Liberta tein Ip sa ,cunil a triuici- 
di aay it. 

pee Livy Epit. 116, Florus ‘pit: 2: 13. 92 .sq.,. Eutrop: 
bievmon 25.) Vell, Paty list. Rom. 2,56, (Cic., De, Div. 2.9, 
23, Phil. 2. 12. 29. But in this, as in the rest of this chapter, 
it is impossible to say which particular writer or writers Au- 
gustine has followed for his authority. 


143. 8) Ant Orn hues) Co Ui ove he men t e.1 p10 
eave m, ila, ove dat Boe tases 1b ein t atee 
Cmcero resis te bat” 

The source of this is uncertain. It cannot be Florus. 
see Cicero's In M. Antonium)Philippicae XIV, Vell. Pat. 


150 


Hist. Rom, 2.64, 22° Have cs unt) te mipio © a7 a1- 
bias) Meo wlliuts 60 ntina 1s. aes om. bags 
aetermas Antoni Memoriadc 1m ssit motas, 
also Id. 2. 66. Florus and Eutropius do not expressly men- 
tion his hostility to Antonius, but speak of his assassination 
in the proscriptions to which Antonius was a party. See 
Elorus Epit. 2. 16. '5,, Eutrop.: Brev. 7. 2 (ad  fin.), Livy 
Epit. ‘120. 


144. 21. ,- bowes) loc wtors . 

See Livy 3.10.0 424. 1o.sTO:5 (274 Tied 26. 2a. ee 
20: As Ar. (tl, 2) Wales Obseq.. 15." 20, 927, 043, (5350 eke 
Georg. 1, 476: 


144: 21.) 1 niantie's “no nda m, | nia t ose seaee 
uteris matrum gGuaedam verba, clamassie. 

Seé’ Livy 24. 10. io lhfan-tem if- W@tero 
mMatras Ga Marraciais: “Mo Whim nt pire, 
claemias se. 


144.22. (Vv oO liaisis'e: “Ser pre mrt ese 

Various prodigies in connection with serpents are related 
in, Livy. Compare 7.17. 3, Epit) 18, 21/22... 25. s6s caren: 
19. 7; but to none of these does Augustine ‘refer here. 
He probably had in mind such a prodigy related in one of the 
books now lost. This is all the more likely because he has 
evidently taken the other prodigies from Livy’s narrative. It 
is strange that if the above incident occurred in Livy it is not 
repeated by Julius Obsequens in his Prodigiorum liber, as we 
can prove from his language he knew and in many cases 
followed Livy, though not always. 


m4. 22. feminas et galhinas et homimes 
in masculinum .sieixum fubrsse conversas, 

See Livy 22, 1. 13; 24. 10, 105 this is not recorded m 
Julius Obsequens. 


Tae. ( pluit terra. 
See, Livy,,.10.-31.8 5°35. 21.3 5189s Se Shire eeneO. Fp Abe 
16.5. jul. Obseq. « (55), 24 (73). i 


ae 








151 


T44. a7.) -p luat: e rietiay 
See"Livy 24. 10.°7:' “Jul "Obseq. 47 (107). 


TAQ. (272. (0.1 gt) leap ih Gis bits... 

See. Livy i. 93k. iret oes) 220) 1) o)> 22. 36. 7 3 26: 
2205 sol gor Oo. ule Obseq. vm (55), 10 (7.7),..44 (104), 51 
(111), 54 (114). 


ra 295 Lecimus lapiid) eos, A etn aieis 
iPeenepras: Sal ip. SO) mM Ome is ver tice. us q mwe 
SC hit tins proxcimum (decurcne ati bas. i ta 
Meee tee hb; US S/e 1. Wits EU pies’) 6 xu Tere mitu.e: 
Utipilces mavium solverentur....Eodem 
Un sis aces tu Vonium tamt avi fav il lave 
Serie runit, Op phet am, ess 6 Si.cidli am. 
Lipjty wera til n,e! Mysit7s)) upr Dyiase igtyeyCetya. | O Ditty tia , cegt 
Pte Se aair we neti quallc ailam ita tie) p ex - 
moti misericorditer € urs de m an ni 
HED att mye dre | axvav erie, RCO miami. 

No doubt this was taken from one of the now lost books 
of Livy (59 or 60). See Servius on Verg. Georg. 1. 472, 
Vidimus undantem ruptis fornacibwus 
muerte me os 2) wes de rt) OL yi west). |) tanta 
flamma ante mortem Clave Stash Ws epx 
Avestin al vim Grnitie) de f leucxtist, ut mon. tan tum 
Vicinmae -u-tibes sed etiam!’ Regina civitas 
adflaretur. Julius Obsequens refers to the same 
(Prodig. "ib. 32) Aetnae incendio Catina 
consumpta. Orosius writes of this (Adv. pag. 5. 13. 3): 
eodem tempore Aetna mons ultra soli- 
tum “e€xvaensat! “et “torrentibus igneis 
Suprmeriusts (latequie care umelluen ti b u's 
Catinam urbem finesquée eius oppres- 
Sktevtha- uti tec tavaed iia (c-allidis cine ri- 
bus PFidsewiss tia) Ge-t) \pir.ae gra viata con- 
Tepernent cuius levandae cladis 
Causa ~s-eniat us) die-ce-m.annorum vecti- 
ealia Catin é naieb us) rem is tt’. Thus Augus- 


152 


tine and Orosius differ somewhat, the former saying that the 
Romans! remitted, .e€1uside¢mifannt, trabudam, 
the latter idlevc em: (a nn Om ey e7e Pou ie aia 
it is impossible to decide which is the more correct. 


i453. LUcustanrum | etiam: in. A fried 
mubinGa dine m pe dived i su ile my ti ssie. 
Cum, tam Esset.) pion @hs Romana? pico 


Veto af.) lid tt eres. maven da Vre Gelatin eOnne 
Sum pet's emi trae po bse f Onl & sug) elon 
norum ime eM C1) actiquave.” ima cis tt mira aie 


mvulibte) im + gavriew/ id) iechuuart™ 4e/s)s-e ) deeiverc: ta umn- 
Gia im on tu ayreydida ta quite) | at tio raibiuts! a tqume 


Hy mC ane ce COTE Up te tantam ortam 
pac.s.tt emit ta mas SOL ta, eSroslsoy Tiel m0. Me aesatee 
nissae octingeénta hominum milia 
Perisise Teena n twee Verte cmd t Onvasm palsies 
int) atrel rir is Val aeAtvoyr a. aus. 7, (pot.O xsl tS, - at 7a, ne 


U tt Ca-6 868 i At rg pn bay Vil bea Se pie Our lems 
quae ib1 Jer amt d ecieim m1) 1a;rieimiyanrs 1sisie 
Con fir mane. 

See Livy Epit. 60, Jul. Obseq. 30 who has preserved 
Livy's-account, apparuit lucustarum ingenti 
ajo ine. im | CASi aE ei, Jqaiare? ia (av elm pie. abo 
mine pdvet eet ae, flue t icbmts guise), tenie cee aae 
OldsGrre im tyo) err aibagls Cy re mais morti- 
fie GQ uie, Jvia.p Ore | selria;y eames persia lie nyc aa 
hece Tum t, perc oma) hyo ma mam ine a ee eae 
mie i ay PCO MS mM! pitian stair brew) (prr-oxda timp BerSs ee 

Compare Orosius Adv. pag. 5. 11. sq. who again differs 
from Augustine, and gives a fuller account. The former says 
that in Numidia where there were octingenta milia 
hom d a Um, jsp lass quam Pd nie emits emilee 
Puc raSS 6 9 it Taye 2 team ENS ty, apud ipsam 
V/6.000\ 010) t)i-C amy Ca wubt avtre ml, shor iee ur imetya mips 
Mp Mints, eho. BERG G Ear Saytaa une pauper auseal 
S Cmte 4..ap ud. Utivcam, (Sa bs wma yd whe- pes 
Ulam) spor tam (ex dibs ian vo miep Us. spreads 
Guam/ maddie gq u1n-¢ emt ios am Ow Eno Spe llautwars 
PS SiCugatart Tae. tt, 


a ie 


153 


BOOK IV. 


146. 16. Note how Augustine says he derived his infor- 
mation for the facts related in the three preceding books : 
Pawirlm sexe re CemMmtt memoria and part1m 
Sx litters e€O ram, 


FA7 p22. Guia, el M08 WO, er0 Vs ACpat let iS! DiEtel vi = 
nena we Sitrhin Clet ium recerOu | libre) blo) 4 quae mn) de 
MeO Se © i pis iti. tern €in aio m niiay, diirc ens 
Maver ant Ioxnye iS) \.) ¢ 


These words and on to p. 148. 8 are taken as a solid 
piece from chapter 34 (in Hildebrand’s edition) of De Mundo, 
Sserdy pineava nea | plyeicit 1iorneu my idiijv ens tt ait erp h ais 
Hildebrand says. 


T5027, ble oan be rem lim vet ver arc. tien 
Ree xaandsr ount lid NM arom-o iq ud dam “co m p Tie.- 
Hresmysea spi raytay ries pron @ it. Nam cum 
indvenm) Tex hominem tnitierrog ass et quad 
GG hebun Wt mare, ites taret itive 


ihben as com t um a civa: Ow od) ti bal. ym Gru ict. 
WeOiwDe Mm terra rium Ss ed .qu ta, id s.e.c.0 
SeaecuOm Manvel a ino, facto. least to © “wO.croun,: 


(lita. ti) mae nae classe, -1 mpie.ta.t.o re 

See Cic. De Re pub. 3. 14. 24 (preserved by Nonius, pp. 
L275. 3ko, 534) Nam Cum Wquae rer et wr, ex 60 
MHOuetstC CoLe en me iimMup ul siuis, Joma e.) hia be niet 
iat es tm in Oy My O pat on €, Se Ovdnesiiaas 
Pmeawit. “quo. tutor bem tie or ae.’ .. This-is 
not recorded in Curtius Rufus. Cicero isevidently Augustine’s 
source for this story. See Literary Sources of DCD I-X p. 20. 


iS, 15. / quan do¢paweass im?) ¢ladiatores 
im “Campania ge. ludio fifgiemtes \mag- 


154 


num €xeRcitum cCompararunt, triessd ucies 
hab wer unt. 
See note p. 138. 9. 


16g..4 sOualibet autem fide rec m 
yed wshe. vel Trog us scrips et (lane 
quaetam illos  £wisse mien t1 tos a lio 
fadeliores lit.tenae oste nd unt) coms eae 
Kamen, et inter -alies sicriptores psec - 
num Assyriognum Ga Nino rege Tuisse 
lomecce lartienq we spoerre ctu m . 

It is not possible to say to what sources Augustine here 
refers. Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome, B E vol. 8, col. 
44). Ninus fwit rex Assyrioruam,' maxi- 
mMorum insigniumgquwe facinornum auctor: 
Id. col. 49, col. 259. 


153.9. Nam sicut scribunt qui chront- 
cam historiam .persecuti -sumit; arilaite 
ducentos et quadraginta annos 2b anno 
primo, duo Nin us Teo na We co epi tape ge 
Mansit h,p.c Teen um. dome c. tian Ss ise ce 
faite asd. OMe ders: ; 

Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome BE vol. 8, col. 50) 
Temps im peri1. Aw sy Tier wm |S ecu me dang 
aie CUTatosS SCriptores aan. San wile ~ dear 
cemtet quadnacin ta, . See und am Vero 
alos. wnt ove = Pinmercve mitorr, The same number is 
given in col. 347. On the other hand Iustinus Epit. 1. 2. 
ion LM Pet kam. ANSS yous, 2) cu Mi lelne er scr. 
Centers | anim s § “ten ue rie. Hence Augustine 
here agrees with the Chronicle of Eusebius and _ not 
with lustinus. Compare DCD, XII, 12,0 10 "qua bas 
regnum Assyriotum in ¢adem iepistola 
Alexamdri quingueée milita exceditaaa- 
norumey tn Giraeca’ vero his tow ia, omae 
ferme (ef utnecentos thabet alb ji psiias 
Bela pip Ham crisp. arta 


ete 


155 


ES ae | Cw aNd eeiOn €.b/e-Gst.t.. etiam (ab 
His) COplk KGutet . tin ime) Dye.) ) Sine) sim, wikia 
Gin Osc Ol unite) Sie deyracl sO), MOMs) niee) ne Unie un = 
Braet. 1. 

For the fragments of Varro in the fourth book of DCD 
see Francken pp. 8-31, Schwarz especially pp. 438-449, 
Agahd, index p 367. 


157. 17. Though Augustine does not mention Varro by 
name in Chapters 10 and 11, there can be little doubt from 
the nature of the subject and the similarity with other authen- 
ticated remains of Varro that these passages are to be attrib- 
uted to him also. 


16920. © Wine etiam hoe nt Ges. don usm 
ag a ntodea pt oO Sf it utaom-e, £ ila rium, va ntie)- 
(qo. mre as) tun se fe nt, vin 1S. 

Though Francken, Schwarz and Agahd do not mention 

this passage I have no doubt that it is to be referred also to 
Varro, whom Augustine follows in the preceding and succeed- 
ing pages. Probably Varro added this information in his 
sixteenth book of RD entitled ‘‘De Diis selectis.” This is 
treated more fully under Varro in The Sources of Augustine, 
p. 40. 


ROn E32 OU Le EWM), | Vie f.0)) | app Clulsamute Ss: , 
Qiaves ft dvcie feof gu, et. mc ulm .'a.é¢@ ean ) ha 
Memerb ne x tan poe tau, C ofl inva m,. 

Compare) Livy 4. 47. 8, vita) loa be ama. .ajd) fa, - 
num Quietis. From this we learn that there was an 
gee S), dedicated to. ©lie's, located, ¢x tra spor - 
ham Colhinam. while there wasa fan u m. to the 
same deity onthe via Labicana. 


T67-/i15, Hoc) (Ge) bon os esse deos)) Pilato 
dnic.t t*. 

Compare Plato Rep. 2. 379 B, ovxotv dyabos 6 ye Geos TH OvTe 
te kal Aextéov ovtws; Ti pnv. Ibid. 379 C oid’ dpa jv 3 ey, 6 Geos, 


> N > 4 / 5) 4 * > »” > / ¥ 
é7revdy) ayaGos, TAVTWY GV €LY QALTLOS .... .OUK apa aTrOOEKTEOV OUTE 


156 


‘Opypov ovr’ adXov roujtov Taityv THY apaptiav Tepi Tos Beovs avonrws 
apapTavovTos ..... Ibid. 380. 381B dAda piv 6 Beds ye Kai Ta 
Tov Geod mavTyn apiora exe. Id, Theaet. 176. C. Geds oddapz ovdapdas 
DOUKOSi2 2 etone 

But the above is rather an inference on the part of Augus- 
tine from his knowledge of Platonism and Neo-Platonism than 
a reference to any specific statement of Plato, as no such 
definite statement is found in Plato. 


£685.13. \qrucarm |) Piowr-t uintaim WAG Gat) it eet 
Simi ha-cemim emus ‘qiusod a imi ticle m psedse die 
Cat uy ove sttever). yap wie Wihattia, els. t 7) Bowen teanee 
muliebris, etiam to eu tum vesise (mesmo. 
jae Commend averint atque dix isse mom 
sie.mel) oSe (do, tie © ym: 

see Livy 2240... Lact! Div, Inst) .25 74 mm, aed 
€tiam. mir able, qwod samo) ac ua eho 
tunae muliebris non, seme . oe nt nem 
esse traditut,; dbid, 2. 16.11; - qitjod, EF orca 
muliebris periculum denuntiavit; Val. 
Max. 1. 8. 4, Id. 5.2.1. No doubt this deity was treated 
of in Varro’s work. 


169005.) Voitt unt emi ‘qu: oO quate dea. mt ecm 
(bh le 

See Livy 27.025.7 Sa. Wid. 29. ta.0a3,, ave dteme” Van 
tmst is” € 0" amn.on asd “port au © a p= mame ever 
Marc eld as od edngawit. 9 Lact. Div. Instjaeoene. 
E-20.°19, Inst.’ Bp. me.0;, C1. NE Ds 72.23) Gr, os soanos, 
De Legg. 253. 19,2; 1526, De Ke pub. 1. 14) 27,7 Vale Max 
ee Soe 


r69.96; et Fades die a, "Gir edict an le steer 
ae cept €tiam Tpsa tem pligimice taal eae 

peeduivy 1. 21.4, €t soli Pidew Ss olMeimynze 
ins tatu t + Cic, N.oD, 2. 23, Gr hss) ay We Meroe: 
U; 10; 2, 11, 28. 

169; 14. Owandoe quidem | Vit uae meee 
quartueor Species: distr] b em d amieee se 


157 


ViCerun e.)  piruwdemitam, dustitiam, for- 
Pane Vid tnveime) tem pre gan tia m . 

Augustine’s literary source for the four cardinal virtues 
was Cicero’s Hortensius, as we learn from the De Trinitate 14. 
gre, Die) omen bin Ss) ityarmeen. ‘gta ttuon (vit - 
Pie Das) ota. Do liliinssim, ELortensio dias 
logo disputans. That this was not the only place in 
the works of Cicero where the four-fold division of virtue 
was found we know from Jerome (Comm. in Zach. works, BE, 
VOL Oreo igs) Qui.at tues 'ChLice t ivirt ut es 
Pease mahi sy lns ti tant Ot tt uid oO. temp € r= 
Sede de | 1Gru i beues, pi legmals:s i mreo) am |) Opi tir 
Copa pl ivprcts! lu tel ics) dias pa tat, sew i bi- 
Ssap SOLD Gl Un) qd Ww org.ure, Ge. qwatt wor )vir- 
tutibus librum. A similar list is found in Apuleius 
(De dogmate Platonis, 2. 1; Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 
203) where pudicitiam stands for the tempéran- 
tiam of Augustine and Cicero. See the Literary Sources 
OPCW 1-X,) p. 20. 


HOG; e250 Mitic io.) Culm den te 1 ay). (plow ex 16 
fim) fe luasmim.ais . 

his .comes from Livy 2. v2.12), ¢ um) rex, simul 
Pe Amey, Shes | pe Tiras Gr Ge CO. fe or i tius 
Henican Guarino ni Simin ita bunds; 1u beret, 
Mis Mle Lip h omer €t) pro pier é qila’s 1 ns id ia: - 
MUBIMMESMD hi iAN Meas, upLet, hat ID avove.S)\ivavere tect), 
Se ue tb ek Me) tin Mob) S.einv tila S40) Qi tvaim 
Maen sClOnr pulls. Sil € 1S 1G) Wdy mae na mo go lio tiam 
Miiem to ud ex tramquce ‘accen so ad) Ss aeri- 
Mime item OC wl oO imtcvee, see Horus pits 1 42 5. 


Looe27-0 CU f 1 Onl 'G Um sic ppEO) (pia tr iva) 1m 
MO pital | tier hag! pirare cicp tre m:) ded 1 ti, 
The source is Livy, in whose history there are two ac- 
countsiof the origin of the, laeus Cuntiums, 1. 13 and 
7.6. It is to the event which took place on the latter occas- 
10n) (7.6.3) that, Augustine here cefersy tum M.. Cun- 


158 


tilum, Guwenem “bello tee re eau cays bar 
gasse SEA dubitamte san ilar 
Magis sRomanum .boenwm, «quam arma 
Vittwsqure. seis Set? Silentto ‘facto tem 
pla *deorum immoertalinum, iq imae ) tote 
imminent,’ Capitolium que wnt aden tem 
Ct mands nN Une vin caie Pum Yonewenee aon 
PveCe mtie’s (tier ra.e: shiva ts. cad. de ois sml.avnmers 
porrigentiem’ se (devovisse, eq uoome 
dein de ..q uialm “pio tie tat) mia x 1 mere or mantis 
insidentem armatum Se.) "in (Ss prere Uae 
im Mm 1S 1Ses ies, . 

In the examples (Mucius, Curtius, Decii pater et 
filius) of fortitudo which Augustine gives at 
the close of this chapter he has not followed Florus, for Florus 
does not record the case of Curtius, nor has he followed 
Eutropius or Cicero as they do not give the information here 
required. Augustine’s authority must therefore be Livy. 


r69..128., Diecito ‘patrin, (et. yDierciwo smn ie 
CHM) (pit O exer Cit. 0 iS) e) Wvuo vee cae er 

Livy is the source—P. Decius Mus pater at Vesuvius in 
the war against the Latins in the year 340 B.C. See Livy 8. 9sq. 
Florus Epit. 1.9. 3. P. Decius Mus filius at Sentinum B. C. 
295 in the war against the Gauls Etruscans Samnites and Um- 
brians. See Livy 9. 40 sq. 10. 28., Florus Epit. 1. 12. 7 
Nya i) (OP Pp He's suis. ain), sayn go Paves 1 Salter 
Sonsulam Deciwms more patrio,deviot nm 
Gigs diam 1 Deus) olbet weld cea act 


173. 1... Cw. deni que: -tiasm steno); 7 hime 
tiaimytiaie). die ae Gaerne sist antsy) post font 
ROmsan os: prinecip es Lareu luis waredvem 
COms eat ai £7? 

This perhaps occurred in the forty eighth book of Livy 
now lost, but Augustine may have found it in Varro’s writings. 
There is no mention of Lucullus’ building a temple to Felici- 
tas in any of the extant writings of Livy, Florus, Eutropius, 


159 


Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, Seneca, Aulus Gellius, 
Tertullian or Lactantius. From Cic. In Verr. 4. 57. 126 we 
know that there existed a temple to Felicitas, but Cicero does 
not say that Lucullus built it. Arnobius, Adv. Natt. 4. 1. 1 
mentions Felicitas among other deities who had shrines. 

L. Licinius Lucullus, the grandfather of the Lucullus 
who subdued Mithridates, is the Lucullus here mentioned. 
He was consul 151 B. C. and became notorious for his acts of 
cruelty in Spain, especially against the Vaccaeans., 


ranges Nam) sicut whjab emt) €or aim lite 
Beomaeswicwm ) nex (larquinius, ) Cap itio- 
wimuha brteaneivelheti..cu per aug ursum 
Gmaesivit utrum concedere locum vellent 
aval sareque) 1p Sd (inide ec e:d/erte>) om nies 
Molter nit «pra eter ill o's) ques | 0 mime - 
mio tian) Ma rite m lier ma nw ar) wiv-e.n tate mi”. 

See Livy 1. 55. 4, who mentions Terminus alone as not 
yielding, while the Epitone of this same book gives Ter - 
mai wee) Ul Ww) emit ave Aen a ex mover 4) | nyoun 


Mouuenu nt. | Soalso Florus Epit. 1. 1.7 9c eWdien ti\- 
PGs Muciete ris) id Wis! ——wind fares. sd eta s— 
BeStHier 6. Luwentas: et Termin wis Au- 


gustine by his addition of Mars to the dissenting deities dis- 
agrees with Livy and Florus. This different version Augustine 


probably obtained from Varro. Francken says: Hoc 
Memons Clon itm ait wir @ wo di ice fer i,q aos 
Titcocpocui. Ws criptores, Martéem Lo vii 
Peesic eve tet elim) ono (CO Mim em o'r a0 0: See 


his note p. 22 sq. 


P72 plisitie. a liven a, rum dd iedt ur a, dou, l- 
Boe eeoOam iis trey plane | pul cbr i) a'm)- 
PMacol.G 15) aa t.O.T lect. F ap tO) 6. - 

These stories about the immorality of Jupiter were 
doubtless well known in the popular religion. They need not 
therefore be referred to any particular literary source. Com- 
pace DCD: TV. 26. (p: ao.) in 11s, ludis cor- 


160 


ruptorem, puwdicitiae Lowvem twrpwssitima 
hist tio mes" “clan ta bain €- avere bam © Vomluarceer 
b’a at's 

Woog Cur’ ere oud, sicmen ten, aura 
haecvdictitantuTr cam tt tam ter aie tush ae 
(Be bi gi deorum “hon orbs Sie xh prenet eee 
in per res ‘diva nas ado Cobh sisM ims gece 
Seribun tur? 

The main source seems to be Varro. See Livy 7. 2. 3. 
Lads’) qnuo qiiles Misiciate nrc. Sie. 4 sal mittens wean 
Ciajerveis t's ipase placamina in s'tagita 
dicuntur. Id. 36. 36. 4. Varro must be included in 
the do citi's'sim is. ‘Compare DCD MI. 4 vir doctiis= 
simus also DCD. IV. 31 (ad init.) Quid ipse Varro, 
quem) dolemas in re biu's dip aus 7 tuvdiors 
S\¢. ae€)n 1G Si) (Gq wa Vass! nO My fide 110) ap ror 
Pit 10y,59p'O Sis sie). 


178. 17.) Pvto (lati mao) F us tiic-o Romano 
patra familias dict wm Vest. aos omnis 
in Sé€natam rmuntharet at yhadi” 2 om ame 
in Sita wf reer nit dee a se 

pee Livy 2.36, ‘Valy Maxi 1: 7.04, sCie. De Dives 1 go. 
55, Lact. 2. 7. 20. In regard to assigning this fragment to 
Varro see Francken p. 28, and Schwarz pp. 144, 445, 451. 


179: 21,  RiewWiattium eis t, jinG Pie te tas igsosce 
tisSSimum pomnmtific¢ em, ofc 4.ev.0)l ames ddiise 
Dutass ¢, At1an oeneta tradi t a odie muse 
in adm a poetis, alterum a philoso phase 
erty om a Pp tienie tapi Daas Civ) Palhise 
Pramium ' oe nus niga to rim me diet te sesten 
quwod'*multa de diis fin gant ur indie na 
Secundum non "congruere Cl yit a tooo 
quod habeat aliqua supervacn aly aliquid 
etiam fg aa ie ‘o' b's it) po pn lsensos Se. 

There can be little doubt that Augustine’s authority is 
here Varro, as Bremer (Iurisprudentia Antehadriana, Leipzig 


161 


fagou, WoL. (1p. 49)yhas noticed); -S cae volam)..... 
Epc mM tila) Sei nieiwai GeO rum’ statu is se 
Peueo Uist ens d eC lvana et LV. 27 Viatro ne 
ge C/O re: naria ty, See also Agahd p. 145. ire 
Scaevola here mentioned was Quintus Mucius Scaevola, who 
was killed by the party of Marius 82 B.C. 


Woes SiO Lert em mere tray Ut tS (per tis 
Gens sit pert lua nom i n.oe.cjemn t. 

These words were evidently a law maxim, and one which 
cannot be traced to any particular source. This whole passage 
p. 179. 21-p. 180. 19 is given by Bremer (work cited vol. 1. 
pp. 102-3) as a fragment plane incertae sedis 
of Scaevola ; after which he adds the remark Fortasse 
Beatesc dS p Uta tt Oni ny Lib) r.O.s..t e c.e p tay non 
Erra? ti. 

Wotear, Lee rm Amn mW im pe rlied ef feni.en tx bias 
Geuotds. ad. Heanini balem= “Civitattbus” in 
Mee ues tu Mm) have tant )¢,0°a rt.ay tis 


PCCUIVy e22) RG hi mr Cienive Cer email tem) ad 
Eeorermuo;s: bi apo pula Atte Lhani.s Callatin 1, 
it pin i., Apulorum pear si; Sa mint tes 
Diecrevgenr. ih.os, Uizientimi et) .Graecor um 
OrmimiS. fen me. OF a, iva tren tami.) Miertar 
Ponmtind. «Cro ton ie n)s.es LE oe st que ent 
Cresson ho mine Ss) Galli. \Butrop. Brevi 3.) 11. 


Augustine could not be following Florus here, as Florus does 
not record this defection to Hannibal after Cannae. Appar- 
ently Eutropius is the source. 


PeanezOsVPLOrs; &.6 a) ion) \Orrmine my tay | bus, pirat ta- 
Paes) road Gia mi. volun tate. imu tati' scunt 


PeGanin!) iin perii Romani, |) Lille namqwe 
MagerSe lip) b.O) Vion CivaSwe mo bales) Aur m en, t-a:m 
Mesopotamiam ANS IS\Var 1am Bye ir Sra 


Saamcessit, imperio. 
Apparently from Eutropius. See Brev. 8. 6.2 Qui 
mata ni+eloTrihaweimvyidens® statim pro - 


162 


Vo inmictiva sy tce sh sere li q Ute) Mqyaians. bina seins 
ara Wider ate werk die Asis ial oie oars 
tama earnm.e nia’ (rev olay tt (eet citins 
ac) faenremn "a mip é © ites se. vy oludcey Hand ppbeeare 
tye: Jerome, Chron. of Euseb. BE vol. 8 col. 465. 


LOZ lk Ulta Mw Se) 2) re Odie att on aaisat 
naves iussit incendi, quibus alimonia 
Poe tap at ur > qa Ne wie ned tas. diesitt bas 
Mmox je tia m. doprsio plosshn ii.) we lone ce gee 
tincto in tantam est redactus inopiam 
- nis -p Parcaieo spraem’s’ inl love.” nismopre mute 
Lames) CO D'S bist We tre me wien 

Apparently from Eutropius, Brev. ro. 16. 


169: 3. Nee VLweiniaim ) an alive me s-) algage 
LaleveO? Goa) Vs Esk ynuty: 

Perhaps with special reference to Exodus 1.19: non 
Sunt Hebraeae sicut AG gy ptia-e muiltenes: 
ipsae pid) mm O bis tet cise amy hyd bemirt 
SC emt i aim), set pry tS qld mm) qvienn sila mid), Sa ane 
GxaeSee) WDad Bie ne 














163 


BOOK V. 


rq3e6 92.) MOD ey Wied. COM men tum die 
fine Uy Ottra GO: Ge SuplO mn dis se fer uu nt 
Neendtiithim,) Hh aveseriqtitare sibto.nve: 9 t wr bia tim 
Headse | erta Ey 1 oot iws),) apiprelelave wes 0S) ts. 
This Nigidius Figulus was, according to Gellius (N. A. 4. 
Ge ected OME Noa frome md) oe tii/s. Si. mith Ss). 
He was an astrologer and grammarian, and, as we learn from 
Apuleius (Apol. 42), was well versed in magic arts. Cicero 
employed him in the trial of Catiline in 63 B. C. Subsequent- 
ly he played a considerable part in politics (Cic. pro. Sulla 14. 
Hood On bE, 2.10, Ad Att 2.2.3)" In the civil war he es- 
poused the cause of Pompey (Ad Att. 7. 24) and consequently 
was obliged to retire into exile in which he died in 46 B, C. 
Of; the. ‘ciommien tum) de fie uli rio ta” xre- 
ferred to by Augustine I can find no other mention, but I sus- 
pect Augustine took it from some work of Cicero no longer 
extant, as this Nigidius Figulus is most frequently mentioned 
in Cicero’s works. Two other arguments for Ciceronian 
authority here may be derived first, from the use of in quit 
. inquit (p. 194. 6 and 9g) and secondly, from the 
close connection of this chapter with the foregoing (frustra 
MivaGulive. a Ci tieur tytym) This passage is treated more 
fully in the part on The Literary Sources of Augustine, p. 21. 


RG7.103) (ied ae Dom nw lis.) pT 2 e)diircci ar 
iit... Qeaord)) .@iuivdvaums S aypite ms) ho nia me le. 
Chet iq Car Cm mW Oriel Ome w myber et wide 
Pela tot asee aabwiol eum - oud. cnee die. tie 

There seems to be no extant literary source for this state- 
ment before the time of Augustine. It has been shown in the 
Literary Sources of Augustine (p. 22) that it may with a high 
degree of probability be referred to the De Fato of Cicero. 

It might seem asif a nonnullis (plural) prae- 


164 


dicatur_ were against single Ciceronian authority. But 
we have several instances in Augustine where he uses the 
plural number where he really would require only the singular. 
Conspicuous among such examples is one which occurs in this 
same book (DCD V. 20. p. 23t. 6) where Augustine writes 
solvent  pbhilos‘opii, | where he ‘has clearly sonly 
Cicero in mind. If then) philoso pha can stand (for 
Cicero in particular, surely a nonnullis may do the 
the same service. It might be said that philosophi 
here represents philosophers in general, of whom Cicero was 
the first exponent in Augustine’s mind for the particular state- 
ment he was making (tabulam quandam verbis 
pingere etc. p. 231. 10). So alsowe may answer that a 
nonnullis praedicatur may equally well repre- 
sent in general the opinions of those who believed in astrology 
or divination (mathematici), when Augustine had in 
mind chiefly this remarkable example given by Cicero. 

Other examples of the use of the plural numbers for single 
authority may be found in DCD IV. 24 in which the word 
inquiunt is twice (p. 176. 15 and 29) used, where ap- 
parently only Varro is referred to; and again in DCD IV. 26, 
where the words |.a:—d.octissimis cons cribuo tun 
refer -chiefly. t0 Varro, as we. learn), from, DCD TY, 21 (ip: 
185. 18). 

Livian authority has also been disguised by Augustine ina 
similar general and indefinite manner. Compare DCD III. 31 
where the three plural expressions Legimus apud 
€60,5- (Pp: 244: 29), (sien ps.er unt Ap a42. eee 
teris mandaverunt (p: 145. 5) stand principally, 
if not altogether, for the authority of Livy. 


202.0; 1111. )quo.g wes we rs us) tlie mie mics 
heatiee Sremmic emit 1 ace Su ff -riaiea mater - Geials 
Cicer eam Lat. niu ms vie Tee 4) 

Augustine was apt to prefer a translation when it was at 
hand to the Greek original. Compare Confess. 1.14, Nam 
et. Hiomrerais splerdturs! st exe ren aie ar 





Drew hase pe Gewdiul Gus cimmre i iviam us’, est,’ et 
Mu Dive amicm) a Marni cera t; p ue Tro. 


The lines given by Augustine do not occur in Cicero’s 
extant works, but are assigned, as by Mueller, to the fragments 
of the De Fato. They evidently occurred in one of his philo- 
sophical treatises, as Augustine tells us in the context : 
SAO mciOis Gicuilely i Migiea ti as ster én té Sug tios 
exe LOOMMLe On VieiS as. 15/0 licirie! ‘Wiss r pare, 
and it is more natural to assign them to the De Fato than to 
the Acad., to which Dombart refers them though with a ques- 
tion mark. 


202) 226 © tam (diy ina tio nem’) s tere on:- 
Putsetamanioh etre WW t a evgue te S's en's). 1 em, tila 


fare Orn m., levam que: “vom nit biw's vi nayburs 
Mmiienaim jessie) OM nino) Con ten dat viel vin 
Hyori nye, viel oan) derouy Oma tsar que 95 er am 


paca e dic tio n.e'm,. 

See Cic. De Div. 2. passim, De Fato. 6. 11, non enim 
Cre aon teu lVoreple ne GpLto: aut "€ ete 10'S) \aoth= 
iG Seavee rk Siarrie dh SO. Nm Ue: kr ie;s | aush) e's 
Gti nia tone mtan tur fut ura pra ei 
ditere me. ibid) 14.) 43, et passim. 


203554935) Dion ent Mm tend vay liqeiad (protest 
Gio dy nom.aliqnua €ff1,¢7 6 ns %¢.a.uys.a) pir aye= 
Sleecisieumiue.</) NSA» ‘anuyEe any! .Cve tty ty Sy e\S.t. 01rd 
Crus UM GuitkO et it, OlMnVe gq Wierd ff 1,t,, Lato} 
ion Guibie. \f Hi Met yOtmym 1a) (Qou.ave. fnun te: 

See, Cic, DelFato:, 10: 20). miotus ergo Sime 
Crauespay, noulgllies: Peys tine Ovwoud 9S) \1i-t.a) erst <om’s 
Mipivcty ac), Wancumi rial Dirty nC atiSu Si friltiem + ian, tie ¢ resi 
SoG) dun Sm iatiaye C:Sat ou teastio yO) I mM a,)(- f ruses 
See tut) eA te) falcon ier i qu) ae.c ul miquie 
faan t, ibid 11. 26,, 58. 47, 19. 44. 


204, 5.) quod) “sii-e omered amis, tin quart, 
Omnis ih wmian amvaita ‘Smbwenrtitur, frus- 


166 


tra Veeesidiantur) frustra obiuroeaghomes 
a ude So anit Wipve Tat 1 0'n e'S> Byer xh om tyacttrompers 
a;dshvicbtemen aon eq ule). ula saihs tite aa ebem ds 
praemiaret) malis sup plicila veo nist meee 
Su nit. 

See We Pato 17..40) € xi quoje tf itcr tue mute 
lawtd ato mes “1 00Sta'e) Si mt Inercy vi tanpre ira 
Etjonve sen ec homo nies) Mnerco4s pip pi) Hed ae 


210.31... Qa’ nomi Sion ms, cae lm se t rem 
Gam. ie co S'od Mim a mipsel im “ents Mn oxmsainee cma 
Sie dy niece © x heli Met) con tem pitt el das) wagneee 
man ti Sv ijS Ceca Ie Ciasy iS.) (palm asm ner 
hve © byave) fl Osea ga ye Var on satvodeiedem 
Si tue (Sia Tiana Mad 6 1m CO y €-nwile mob tea wet 
qnuva diam) ;viela £0), splasc esidse re.) a qyunict = soaps 
mo,d 0 est. (credien dus) reo n ay hom a mim 
60Tu mq ue dom 1a t 10 nes et os enn v0 busters 
AS ae) Pik 0, Vii Gle mM time, ole od Dis. pea erie, s 
Risse sv Onl nA lS Suey. 

Compare DCD X. 14, where Augustine speaks of Plo- 
tinus’ theory of providence and its extent usque ad 
haec: Terrenia et ima, pe tt Novem eof oes 
culeortum atqiie foliietum ) pwc it wet ae. 
So in the passage on which we are commenting Augustine may 
have been influenced by Plotinus. Loesche (De Augustino 
Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo. Iena. 1880, p. 61,) actually 
cites two passages from Plotinus as parallel to the words of 
Augustine: de tiv mpdvovav eri ravta POavew Kal TO Epyov avtns 
TovTo elvat TO pydevos jpeAnkéevae (Enn. 3. 2. 6) and 6 ra ev to ravTi 
yvopeva. Oewpov Gewpet dua Kal Thy Tpovoiay TH ex’ alte * Térarat Oy 
emi mavTa Kal Ta ywwopeva Ta O€ eat. Kai da Kal pages aitdv Kal 
duabeoes (Enn. 3. 3. 5). 

214.20.) Qivais: (aed eS) comin cits saamids 
CO WS iihtice Tato Vii rt uiti. sei He emmanase 

See Livy 27..25. 7 and note p.\ 1691 5. 

220. 4. (Scaevolas et \Curtios vee Decios, 





167 


See Motes ps 169. 25, 27, 28. 


220,18: SOEVituhem- tréeligionis quam 
Aarpeioy Graeci vocant. 

This word Aarpeéa occurs in the N. T. an equal number of 
times with dovAea (five times): Ioh. 16. 2, Rom. 9. 4, 12. 1, 
Feb: 0, 1,09; -6. 


gogara. vasry lumijil bud’ (Reo mw eum. 
See note p. 50. St: 


225 A LVL Los brutus poOotwit et joe ed)- 
cence, 
Dee MOte Pp. FLO: 26. 


294. 2%: ol atiuis etiam Oman as” prin 
Glenprs -eyOr 20 Om, tne: Loa gua t mys). ) ft li me 
Dome aut a. TCO tit a (plat towam!,oSied Jetta am 
Pron pa brian wc OCG dnt £ . 

SEG MOLE Ds 3G. 1 2: 


BOA 2Gs) Mam nans: MC laminas) 2 hay 
See mote: pe 73> 21. 


IRQ.) eM et) Wisi. 
See MOte Pp. [69.25 


220 UI) gle Ur t WMCS, gat myayt Wy Sere), Wy OV Girne 
CHMOD e ILM db yp tammy «hia Uy) ) Cees nae.) | Sue 
Diredie citp tl treme 1d eyd it; 

ee note. p. 169. 27. 


29 Q2n Sie Oc Cl Greimid os Cleir tis vier bis 
quo dam modoconsecman tes De cri, vdie- 
VeOUV (Cer Unsite. 

See note p. 169. 28. 


226:/9, 910 Mia remus Jeoalyal las: ded1canis 
nedem Loves lumens Minervyae . false 
wept abo Daviadis morte filit nuntiata 

fA tea Gen, te mip sat ut eum etiam 
Protect ts op ut um abe ret’. 


168 


See Livy 2. 8. 6, Cic. De domo sua 139, Plut. Vitae, 
Publ? 124. 


226). 19, fo MM. Reo wliws, | nie. (cr udieshus 
Simos) DieIstbes 1 ur am dion iad lemme t.4 ead eems 
ab) 1pisa Ro mia “Trev 6 sais!) 161s ti» quia 1 ammo 
sSicut Romanis eum (ten ere vo lent 1 bas 
Fes pO a 1s'S.6° f-exitis | piers it ea Gq titan ees 
Sieve fart)! i duligiienitrast eam .tclisices ) hhenutersit 
Ciw4S;-lia'b-€ fie non Ip Olsisie ty 

These words bear so striking a resemblance to those of 
Eutropius that we may be certain Augustine had Eutropius be- 
for him. Compare Brev. 2. 24 (ad fin.) (quoted in Literary 
Sources p. 47.) 


227-25, in Na ew am qa) 1c se ad er 
finectus, est “con's alatu,) “as ques said eo 
pauper rem ut num a@mi's a pro pul oscomilatins 
eH ujsy Sep il tur a) cur awiest ui. 

pee. Livy: 2. 16:7 FP 2 | Nvalieanl ish... aatiaine 
pO Sit (his fourth consulship 2. 16. 2) moritur, 
elena teen ti. eoipi is it aimee erp Es 
ade oO (6241 £015) Wit (fa net 1) Sam pits eid ees 
Siet: de pwblico est Jeliatisey, compare .also 
Wal.) Max. i4.5 Ga. 25) qe! aoa, “who Setves Publis: enop 
Lucius, as praenomen. It will also be seen from Livy 
that Augustine has made a second mistake in saying that 
Valerius died during his consulship. From both these errors 
we may free Augustine, because it is clear he is here following 
Eutropius Brev. 1. 11.4, Quinto anno L. Valer- 
1/54, 0 oy liytel) CO e%s ia, ceyb,. {Qculaitxen a.erouns male 
fataliter mortuus est, adeo) pam pre nine 
collatis a .piopulo mn utswis) (saan pardon 
habuerit sepulturae, and inthe immediate con- 
text he seems to follow Eutropius. See notes p. 227. 5, 227. 
it. For Valerius see note p. 121.5, 


2297; S.9vObiion tim ~ Cyicn oiynina lb wy, erie 
Quattuonr Ame era, pos saderet tet. casas 








169 


Myrna SCO erment)cuaypy)) avrait ro: és Se) vand)- 
uke. c um). Stikty directa o te Pierre tio) a) Se oy rel- 
ti siq ure host) bows ime e nit e m 7 | Oram 
€.0 nis e.c U tum in eadem paupertate 


man S SS 6. 


Seemliviyii4: szonsq.,. Hloruse pit: Vr-)5. 42) sierd) Uhnoys 
piace 61 pute ait as Ofa ine iuls d oan) n:ilt; 
Hipiren dine tart Ott Jalb). aga tro), ) ig wi > osbesie/sista 
Cia prance) 1) ami nGiaiprtyaun) (Mi ain tl!) co nese lanis 
Cransetla | pelee eo dla iVidke GOrn tray |b eC UW preirra With. 
Neda th Rest alta eermep USse forte, siecle: t1/s 
CHUMP aE LC UA, Vir wm yim ix um: ayriastervo 


SuOmmligevtiOntl Wily Sip, S;O. Osp) er €) adie.p tie hennids1)t: 
Meee aati katt Cdyn O;teer Crt 1,S a. sels Qitind des a 


Sse 12. Olle Lol iSa si imiyisteart 1.0 m.€ Gessaret, 
imorge), “pre.c ud Um) sO Deen o am.) ym St). |S 1sC 
erapresdiet tone | ined ta Terd) 1:€ ad boves 
Bur sws) tr um) ph alisi jae rac ola’. 


Here too Augustine had probably for one of his authorities 
Eutropius to whose language his bears a close resemblance. 
Compare’Brevo1s 17° Ls Owintius "Cincinnatus 
Cc ator Fest Lact ws tqut jaie © wm qriart - 
Mor lie erum possi dens mea nib us, suis 
colebat; yet not Eutropius alone, for the words of Au- 
gustine abe vanat ro tes sve ad duct wim — have 
nothing corresponding to them in Eutropius, but resemble 
Klorus) “dictator ab) arnatto. Also glerivam 
Son Sec uti, Pn era, dem) pid u p.e nr ta, tie Miva ni 
sisse cannot be found in Eutropius, while it would corres- 
pondyto, ied it) ad. bow eS rar sus tri um piha’- 
iGsoea ote ona om mlaniss meic:,, De Minn. 2) .4. 12.) arb 
aha tf Oy ad duuxe mw nyt Vidal. Max. 4. 4.7: 


227, Tl. Cum te abit Gnd mm) di di.ce'r 1 t+ t amr 
St mivUpn err Wb Ussh ek wet he) r eres -) Bp tir op trate 
hus.) pr Om: 1/S)sra | Sect tam quarta Dan He 
Beni a Rioime@en al (ciyatat 6 mon pot ujiisis.e 


170 


di vel 1 ibique in sua paupertate 
PTiiva tue Ymramre'r-e: im a li Wilsisies. 


See Livy Epit. 13, Florus Epit. 1. 13. 21, Eutrop. Brev. 
2 2) § Snyaum: . elx) \lveve a tits Romanorum, 
Fabre ium... vs ie. “aid miggjatais. |e nmi eum 
Prauepremae My .eS:S & 1 (COs NOV A SiSse tL utter. anatetea 
parte ree m 1, prio miss a Sona custiaire 
ex Ouayerra ty) (1) Ut. (aidhy. (Scent © ainsi ect! cram 
Pew pt Usiq ue e's tj .a) earbirac ajo... Val. Max: .aseno: 
Avia 3, Av4..1 1, Cic., Paradexagra.48,) Use. (3-23-50: 

Eutropius alone seems to mention the quarta 
parte regni_ unless it occurred in Livy 13 of which we 
have only the epitome. That Augustine is here following Eu- 
tropius alone is rendered more probable by the fact that on 
this same page Eutropius seems to be his sole authority about 
ie Valier im s, see note ps 227,02) 


227. 17. Wt qd oi Gam) leo fiw.) Wo) uli weipaent 
bas) acomiswly,, fais stet4) Vv ie.ere “Lilo s.ecnna ten 
LO Mi nihm,.pawpenum |» pelWVermet wr. nota 
tion é ) (Cemsio hia) quod, sidie'c-e my) pio madre 


at Re Met |) a na! via sis) cha bewr.e fevoum.p eat wis 
est. 

Quidam is P. Cornelius Rufinus ; see Livy Epit. 14, 
Florus Epit. 1. 13. 22, Cic. De Orat. 2. 66. 268. Aul. Gell. N. 
A. 4. 8. 7, 17. 21. 39. Augustine here has not followed Eu- 
tropius, but probably Florus. 


220,28.) seeds hia Piis! vii ia (Saw mim ahbiantse um 
e fiGu a suylia © Cvem),! qiuva nyd apm: Nveir oan aversrane 
Pian es" Orbs in ait, 


See Tac. Ann. 12. 69 to end of bk. 16, Jerome, Chron. of 
Huseb; SBE vol,’ 8..col. ‘457 sq. “BHutrop! Brey yz. mane, 


Pid ire ise irda multa coOmmiasit fi; Thraveme 
Ul RVOMIGeece OO e (2) 1 natin esi ial teen ttne ren tations 
Ut bre my eaRvormyaim , An cen digit) f linte Wssnse eee 


Cult) ews imate nrve m ‘eer mesic ty 





171 


Sage 252 PAV OMS tautranemep Wr ayn O ys). Gta ns do 
Ane us Sec Wh ita tier wie to ria ie . 
See Mote p. 133. 1. 


233250 ber inal mde eG. or. SU Pp, € © 10 rie 
inbot- Oo dhl: m temo i S.. 
SEG MOLE Pp. 174, 30. 


235) son be lin my pir atanr wma _P.o mip eijo:. 
Jee NOtE P. 135. 23. 


see. 22 Deli ui, Pune tims tie rt ium) ‘ab 
Spe Pil G my ey. 

SCG HOLE P.. 120. LE. 

294..2 pb eusl um Geno qe i) fu Set i.vio na m 
Caliacdel.a, tO. am . 

See note:p. 138. 9. 

200) 1G LE ikcre mute Sy Vi at's) tye t (eye lito) moive 
Mie ibLeyy tea teu) Craupatlit. (eit o er 6); tienm)p ta v, = 
eh n) t. 

Nee Mote /p. 136. 7). 


2347 60l.. .d 'O) G6 OLS Wel e's, pe rie fun, t* 

see Hutrop. Brev. 553. 2, Livy, Epit. 73, cum FP) Ru- 
Pies COs Ul op at Wm pir O.S pyr ey “a diver - 
ShibsSe Nea ge Gaogs. (pil o fia ss et. et) om prove lao) (Ce) = 
Codbesisve.ee> EOIb., 75,0 a. (be Orie 1 Ss C1O°n Sui ly Pre 
Dis a pMeOls pre.t.e , Ses tits, fusis que. ali qa o- 
Givchies Mia £ Suis 2) Vdtim: “Cas bt a. eco" r-W my, “erx)- 
Dien ase 96. EC ia 1k : 


S54, is. julien tS, 16m va nie Ss) fine my dedi). 

See Hutrop, Brev. 5-4. 3, qi u.iin tio) dd e.m. Wm, anno 
finem accepit. Augustine has here followed Eutro- 
pius in an error shown by Eutropius’ own narrative. For, 
though Eutropius says quinto demum anno finem 
accepit, he tells us that the social war began sexcen- 
MENS (On WO) Using iMsacre sn ImMEOns, nlO MO, “ain nO: a\D 
prbe condita (543: 1.) and thatgt was ended per L. 


172 


Cornehium Sullam (5: 3.:3 and 54) and! Salla, ac- 
cording to Eutropius’ own narrative, was consul with Marius 
that year “Sie Cen tes imo sexa ge simoy sec tn 
do, so that including both the year of its commencement 
(659 A. U. C.) and the year of its completion (662 A. U. C.) 
we get only four years, not five as Eutropius and Augustine 
both give. 


eg. 13.) Siew: se bier wea ete ea a Seerestiiine 
dew: 76 um) (mae mays) 9d 6 tnd me Mt sine) veedened 
mi tate rei, pn bilicajes pie © \.aen mn ossn dere enim 
et)(o¢to Roma nias “vires te xtreme wy interne 
Pace De UC Oils Um piste duobus prove Miiis 
fieirime \isieip ti ae it mn tral PR oma n oO for my) | anal 
Glee 1 0re halt 


See note p. r26.,u1.., WMivy 30: 44) 2.4 TE amet a We Sak 
Séeptim.o’ die emo” tain no's Hutrops Brev. 35 2254, 
finem accepit:secundum Punicum bellum 
post annum nonum de¢.cim am) quam coe. 
penat = Florus Epit. 1. 22.2, n-ele) enti saamepeles 
decem,et cto ann os hab ete yet asain, 4o: 
2.hesays quattuordecim (ortredecim) anne 
Hannibal is uf ievc erin. t-. Augustine here ssecms 
to follow the first statement of Florus, perhaps Livy also by 
including the year of hostilities about Saguntum before a for- 
mal declaration of war. The two battles referred to are the 
nobilis ad Trasy menn um pena and puand 
Cannensis, inthe former of which, according to Livy 
227.2 qgudnd eroimi Ymilia Rom amore sae 
acre (oe a'e's ay inthe latter'(22.°49. 15) Quandt amimia 
quingue Milia’ quingent1 pe dites, duo 
Meili 'sSlep tia ¢ em ti) equ ters. seit eat dae 
prope Civilm) slo cioruimg ue “pairs (caress 
dit¢ um*tum: 2%.) Florus ‘does motystate ute slosses gac 
Trasymenus. Of Cannae he says (1. 22. 15), sexaginta 
mibmam) caede parta ) mn olbili task Kutro- 
pius does not mention the lacus Trasymenus, but tells of 





173 


the death of Flaminius which occurred in that battle. Com- 
pare Brev: 3.:9. 22) indie jad (hustiam veniens 
Foanmnmibal Hilamuinwe seomsuli. occur rrt: 
prswm FF Jaman ium inte £.e.mit); Ro ma nj= 
Ge wimy e Ve malivay caversca si imt.. He: gives the 
fossesiat Cannae (3-)10;4), Bert iit € nim in eo. ‘con- 
Si Asemuli as Pawlus. con's l ares “aut 
Bee tO i NCS Sle Mase Ore S| (Ga p ti a. uit -o7c- 
Cis eek MO Dike si vir Ce.” mili tiwm 
Sle jin Ls equr tum, (bl “mwlia et > q win 
genti. These combined losses amount to nearly 69,000, 
which may be expressed in Augustine’s ferme septua- 
Pulenetea mat | 1-ar, 

Augustine would thus seem to have followed Florus’ first 
statement for the number of years during which the second 
Punic war lasted, and Eutropius’ record for the losses sus- 
tained by the Romans. Perhaps in both cases he intended 
to follow Eutropius, but the former statement may have been 
an unconscious departure from him. 


e497 OB elit my 0b 0a te Wi yp Fim) tm) prey 
Milece Ouray ve by) str eS. anon Os) pe ta, €, tet mM) iss. 

See note p. 126. 11. In Livy Epit. 16-19 there is no 
definite statement of the length of the first Punic war; such 
a statement probably occurred in Livy’s own work on that 
war, not now extant. Neither does Florus (Epit. 1. 18) make 
any such statement. Compare Eutrop. Brev. 2. 27. 1, anno 
behinnh aartet, viC.e)Sii.m,o, et) tert ho Ca tule 
Deliwm? contra Airos,)¢.o mim is sium ‘eist,; 
which was the last year of the war, and this is evidently Au- 
gustine’s authority. 


234. 118: ) Bie bliiums Mithbrid atircum quad - 
Ha ein ta. 

In Livy Epit. 77-102 there is no exact statement as to the 
length of this war. Livy may have given the number of years 
in this lost part of his works. Compare Florus Epit. 4, 40. 2, 
ille (Mithridates) per quadragiyta annos 


174 


restitit!; Eutrop. Brev. 6. 12. 3,contra Romanos 
bell ui Sha bait annis Qaadracint a. aus- 
tinus (Trogi Pompeii, Hist. Phil. Epit. 37. 1. 7) gives 46 
years. Eutropius was Augustine’s authority. 


2342 22,00b e611 om, (Samm 164 Gam ann Se ae 
Site cS ty ferme <q aim iguarc int apy am Wqiile 
bed lorat a.) gR @mia Qi) vai cli SS unt: | itaysmiee 
Le my et iam: amit te Ten: tow e. 

mee, Plorus, Epit:,1./ rr.) 8," vhvows:> (tiacmie nn quart me 
qwaaginita (anni sy, pier fra bilo Ss, ajey Pa pities 
petres ) 60 7T da mane, Ii ib er Os, Ait a) sid) De eaine 
Paes gl TE oe © facile appare at iM 2 it ere 
quwattuor et! yi giniti) erium phorum) Ea 
trop. brev. 2.00.3, 6 Tam, biel) um) rejuam 9 Sya aaa 
ti b ws, sp er). sa nin.o.s qua dir/aye i neta, pnvowiemm 
actitym ss ws tule? a ajt..,.Compare, Livy roy sn30 
Supernsunt etiam oaunc Samnitium bella 
Quace Contin ua. ‘per, @ ua Tt wim: amuse olan 
men, an nm gue siex,tm mm) et .qiu.ad ae esi 
miu). Ya’ Me.” «Valerio, -Ay Cor nel vom scram. 
Sibivbas quis primi.” Sag noc hae mia ae 
tulerunt.. agimu's, 9 and Epit. 14) (ad fin.) mes 
pra etiervea ico ntr ais cay 01s: et) T Ott ives 
et Sam na tes fediiestre rye les tia, vet. graven 
ries ime ft em ic ontientert.. Also, Livy 2atecaro 
Coe Pp til irguc prop tier vos —ciem |S amin tie 
bos b el limp €r" cle mit nm pf Op © Wa, naa 
Warlante fortuna “even twm ta ler imiaise 
23-042.)60,9 (pie ft, “ann O'S en fa mM (Cl ma pO peu 
Rom ano bel lwm ¢ €ssim Us.) 45.) 35.) roma 
On inie's, (coum) pro) iis! beerlignm) (addy, fr es 
SamMmites per anno s | prope ise pte 
FIN tay sem Mag nis, (no stirs secede ditepacs 
gessisisiémuas. Augustine in his’ ferme) quinn 
quaginta_ seems to have followed the version of Eutro- 
pius. Orosius, Adv. pag. 3. 22. 10 also gives 49 years. 


175 


2950 FA.) ¢ Cm Reaper eucidS 0S a4), ES, exo Gr One 
[TCO ge ob eh 6c Ree 

We have not to seek any literary source here, as this 
event occurred in A.D. 406, only 9g years before the date at 
which Augustine wrote this book. He says above (line 9) 
HOrS Oba hiase MOG ia) eicie um tilsisa/mio, tem pore 
and below (line 30) nobis apud Karthaginem 
dicebatur. Compare Orosius, Adv. pag. 7. 37. 4 Sq. 


22e 2a Con Stan) fini mM) im pier a tO ure ML! 

See Jerome, Chron. of Euseb. BE vol. 8, col. 493 sq., 
Eutrop. Brev. 10. 2. sq., Orosius, Adv. pag. 7. 25. 16 sq. It 
is impossible to say who was Augustine’s authority. 


225. 14. Lowa nyuim ym ol to) icii,6 1s} Vayu ay 
ulyi.aen um, apes t-a lat. 


Here too we cannot assign the authority. See Eutrop. 
BLeVa TO.nEOs 25) Hyhvors tall wemea niu! (\inet er fie cit us 
St (CO lwian msi) Vib yRo ado dia) em: pie ni 
apotneo) asce pital Mion. Wy avert a td Sw al mex ole ttn P= 


cesimo anno. _ Jerome, appendix to Chron. of Euseb. 
BEA Vol. 75, Col; 503.'sq.0 Ludia nis) amino juno, 
mensibus ONei E01; Pow i amis) “myern's ib us 
OC 0%. 


Compare Jerome, Ep. 60. 15 (BE vol. 22. 599) Iulia- 
Mmseop wo diit or) fa mim ae S-uwialet et) Coch rast i- 


aoe iw ou lat or Gre) hiec Ges). Chris tan 
Slemrod), ent Mee dia quem prim 0 m in 
Gran iit amnce mies eyrait sy) nd i) que) RO} ma OS 


Po parca tet valt) fine sey perdi ditt “pyro pia - 
eed £0'S.) | Vl Ony Warnyuls, 9) o Uysatiaf Ws: \ talon) t um 6 er= 
abuse DO Ss) tore t onGie |p Smart mi Swf for- 
rant u's 1M Cer Wines, ostendens omnibus 
Cited shit) (hy) apnea, potent ia. 


220-85.) 1G, Gata newman ier tO.  t y.r aim ny oO 
Pree Mest 1 nt 6 caged: 


176 


Gratian, son of Valentinian, was born in 359, came 
to the throne in 375, and was assassinated in 383. 
Compare Ambrose, Enarr. in Ps. 61. 17 (BE vol. 
14,7) \eolls rego) Recordamus aliquem 
(Gratiantium) proximeée ab omnibus “ap 
petitum, ai suis: destitu tum ae. prods 
tum: aqui jidudiam -im .su ee eisitul boc anus 
imperih, subito,egens omnium ab-ipsis 
quotum Hhaecreditaritium fuerat sorcti-tus 
Obsieg uum, “Coe pit Wroele ri, anes wate 
Dus (in e€x1tem) pntieren tibus mos tem 
malo. anit livait ores oan lon” vars! Ysierente 
Sud, ‘nu liio, relom i te.) also abids 23: 


238: 20.°-a “T hieod/osio vin diecat us est 
guwem) £egni participem Wecerad scum 
parvalum babiermet (tr atre ms vay 17d ior, 
iid aie> (So Cet ati's \/qiuram) nim ilae “protest 
tait1 si. 

Augustine is here treating of almost contemporary history, 
for which it is hardly necessary to seek written sources. 
Compare p. 239.16 Milites nobis qui ader- 
ant cettuleruant. ‘The Theodosius to whom’ Au- 
gustine here refers is Theodosius the Great, a Spaniard, born 
346 and died 395. 


238: 26. post eius jovortem (pul sum, yap 
Cts intiertf¢ectiore |! Maxim ov alien eunaae 
Dea Mm, (6 11S) jpramey il wams tir a trie wm ee eae eee 
Ge pit. 

See preceding note. 


239-5. sed ad Johannem int Aecgypit1 
erem oe "clonstitutum, quem Dei serv im 
propmMetandi “sprrit« (praedaCum (oa 
Crepes oe lite —didi cera. 

Evidently the same as Johannes Aegyptius 
monachus qui ob vitae puritatem “pro- 


177 


BiGetiae jciratiamiuca Domino .m.ér wit) of 
Prosper, Chron. More details are given by Augustine, as in 
De cura pro mortuis gerenda, 16. 21. A biography of him is 
found in Rufinus, Historia monachorum, chapter 1 (BE, vol. 
21, col. 391-405), evidenter namque ei Domi- 


MoUs: pLrOphetiacg gratiam comtulit ; 1ta 
wienmon tantuwm cGivibms, et provincialr- 
DMsmMistinis ts ss at Utria eaprraje dice ret, sied 


etiam pre nator id ) Ehvetodosio, viel) “quos 
betWiesexitus habiturms esset, vel (qui- 
DicsnmMoG hs! vile boriam caperet “det y- 
Hammes. 1 sve-d' et) quo di eir ruption es pp ais:- 
SUmuUS esset gcentium barbararum, saepe 
Pacraie det xe . 


250.) 12, (alia, Sy f a nin em Eugenium, 
quictedin Ff Winds, simple ta) t/0.ri's)) 11.0 c/w m 9 yn oyn 
hei time i wenat sub ros aituis, jae ce prto 
Mins is) prophetLeo Ces pons o fide ce rtus 
ON DEP T/e'S'S)it’. 

Compare Rufinus, Historia monachorum (ad fin.): hoc 
Gaumen) Scine, vos volo, | quod hodi€ rma 
dike mverct OmWwace | rel ieico's i pirinict prs’ five o- 
dois Alex anidni ae mun tiatae, sunt die 
Eugenio tyranno. Eugenius was a usurper in the 
reign of Theodosius and made a vain attempt to re-establish 
pagan worship. Compare Zosimus, Hist. 4. 54, 55, 58; Theo- 
doret, Hist. Eccl. 5. 24. 


20,17 quando in Lhessalonicensium 
wavs si Mm um) sie lus, «Cad lam épiscopiis 
ice paedentibus promiserat indulgen- 
(BIC: AG 1a a ora 

Compare Prosper, p. 49, Immane Thessalo- 
Mmcve ssestum facinws)~éxtincti. popwl1 
Eee eo plore m1 temtiaie ve xe m plo Im pera- 
tor religiosus@eluit. 


178 


241. 26). Ng word. ihai't: | T u-ll urs *.die. quurold iam 
qui peccamdi Micentia--feél1x appeltaipa- 
ture “OVMms er wim), cul pecicia rie) Mice at te 

Mueller, in his edition of Cicero Philosophica, vol. 3, p. 
407, gives this as one of the fragmenta librorum incertorum, so 
also Baiter and Kayser, vol. II, p. 140. 





179 


BOOK VI. 


2 ecee laps eu Plu mies une c -ta le, tes t1 = 
Mom tim spe pihibe tut nel bris A.cadem- 
Gu Spe Wed bys a. 

Mueller, in his edition of Cicero Philosophica, vol. 1, p. 
go, is not certain from which book this fragment is taken. 


248. 24.-249. 30. The complete analysis of Varro’s An- 
tiquitates, found in this chapter, has been preserved for us 
by Augustine alone. 

There is no reason why we should not regard this chapter 
(3) as taken in substance from Varro and largely in Varro’s 
own words. This is the view of Francken (p. 32 sq.): Haec 
PaGeare) tie Eyl, S:Side Sune teeb ny erd Ltt Oance Bt p10. Ni= 
eimrays onan tralmren, simp ed it) )q uo, min a,s 
cme dia murs: houd.ues m-o.d.1 divs tr ic U-t.4..0'n. ean 
Ate aS .to nyt ve; r Dit S) x pit € S's.a'm) Vat r.om,é.m 
inmmorta lity swo Ope ria pra em isis sie. sand 
Agahd, pp. 15. 142. 

Here I transcribe from Dr. West’s MS. his graphic 
analysis: 

AUGUSTINE’S ANALYSIS OF VARRO’S 
Antiquitatum rerum humanarum et divinarum |. XLI. 
[De Civitate Dei VI. 3.] 

I. ANTIQUITATES RERUM HUMANARUM, I-XXV. 
I. Introductory, I. 4 
II. Detailed account in four groups of six books each, 
II-XXV. 
1, Qui agant—De hominibus, II-VII. Descriptive 
of mankind. 
2. Ubi agant—De locis, VIII-XIII. Geography. 
3. Quando agant—De temporibus, XIV—XIX. Chron- 


ology. 
4. Quid agant—De rebus, XX-XXV. History. 


180 


IJ. ANTIQUITATES RERUM DIVINARUM, XXVI-XLI. 
RD. I. Introductory, XXVI. 
II. Detailed account in five groups of three books 
each, XX VII-XLI. 
1. Qui agant—De hominibus [sacris], XX VII-XXIX. 
Sacred men. 
RD 2. a. De Pontificibus, XXVII. 
RD) 3% b: De Auguribus, XXVIII. 
RD 4. c. De Decemviris sacrorum, XXIX. 
2. Ubi agant—De locis [sacris], XXX-XXXII. Sa- 
cred places. 
RD 5.) a. De Sacellisy XxX 
RD 6. b. Se Sacris Aedibus, XXXI. 
RD 7. c. De Locis Religiosis, XXXII. 


3. Quando agant—De temporibus [sacris], XX XIII- 
XXXV. Sacred times. 

& a. De Fertis, XX OXTIT. 

RD 9g. b. De Ludis Circensibus, XXXIV. 

to. c. De [Ludis] Scaenicis, XXXV. 

4. Quid agant—De [rebus] sacris, XXX VI-XXXVIII. 
Sacred acts. 

RD 11. a. Consecrationes,‘ XXXVI. 

RD 12, b. Sacra privata, XX XVII. 

RD 13. cc. Sacra publica, XX XVIII. 
5. Quibus agant —De Diis, XXXIX-XLI. Super- 

human sacred beings. 

RDi14.. a, Di certi; XXXL; 

RD 15. be Dit incerti, XL: 

RD 16. c. Dii praecipui et selecti, XLI. 


201.927, Siewt) idem, “oO pinata V aaoe 
quod “pertineat “Saturn ws ade) semana 

Compare Lingua Latina (Spengel’s. edition) 5. 64, ab 
Saturn Oe o0 ss 3S atu rns 


292. 29. The gods and goddesses spoken of by Augus- 
tine in this chapter (9) were treated of in Varro’s RD. Au- 


181 


gustine gives an idea of the number of deities on whom Varro 
WHOLE. Ps) 200. 0. pS euavans oO COMM em orare 
oa) en uamiesnia tie, "lewsumG.O/e p Lit. a. ).¢:0 n-C'é pr- 


Gnome, iol .0S si ee merar mG ue: Ser Lem per - 
duties icky Metis: Geuer . ard) ndiere re pitt: hominis 
MNO MmtiewMis cis Ndletonudvel co.e pit. .deéos alios 


Gusto micelles), quid Dict ne Tent nom) 7 aid 
ism Mom imem Sed wad ea quae Sumt 
AVO- modem Sin 2 a: 


267. 4. Sq. Inchapters 1o and 11 Augustine informs us 
that he is quoting Seneca in eo libro quem con- 
tra superstitiones condidit—a work which 
has not come down to our day. 


270.30: .¢ Um ad ve rs S Manichaeos 
aQAKeT em us. 

That is in the works mentioned in the note on p. 35. 4. 
His opposition to Manichaeism began with his conversion in 
386 ; even before that time he had noticed some weak- 
nesses in that system, as he tells us in his Confessions. 


182 


BOOK VII. 


2790 165).0 0500 fa Cc Jerr ws ait eur tal 
mica oniGrs: ive rita SS e; Gulag. V7e-8 1S) rt cee 
Sie inn tau ait. bal bal Git g i © Ce tre mle 
probit pudi canitur. 

The exact quotation from the Ad. Natt. 2. 9 is, accord- 
ing to Oehler’s edition,’ Si enim’ ‘dei ut) ‘bubba 
Selvcwn hur, qi) mon: hse lies anit ane pipe 
probi pronuntiantur. Dombart gives this refer- 
ence. 


3060.25: Pri pit en Veer na le m quippe 
f.aciem’ tierra-et quale. C6 tier i's!) eSi4t/) te amy- 
pion bus p wl-¢ ha ior? OPtor p, by tas, pa lioe 
sop has mobiles) Att tim fer esr 's eo *nis 
Gare spe hab wit. en idéo abscisum 
quia los decidit ante trae twa. 

This is the first mention of Porphyry inthe DCD. Au- 
gustine (using a Latin version) quotes often from him, but 
most of the works from which he has quoted are now no 
longer extant. In DCD X. 29 (p. 449. 25) Augustine says 
in his 1p sas lieben sve Sq bas? cman 
poOsUut quos’ de, TresressU. anim ace (scan 
Sat, io, DCD xX, ar (p: ars.) 18) ~ Mied ius “sian aes 
iste Porphyrius (cum ad A nebomtem 
scripsit Aegyptium._ In the passage on which 
we are commenting Augustine may have got his information 
from the De Regressu animae, but compare the words of Por- 
phyry given by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 3. 11. “Artis d€ xai 
“Adous 77 TOV KapTav cicly dvadoyia mpoojkovres. AAN’ O pev "Artis TOV 
Kata TO €ap mpopawopevuv dvOéwv Kat mplv TeAeoLoyovngat SiappedvTwr, 
d0ev Kat THv Tov aildoiwy droKoTiv aito mpocavecuv, pw pbacavTwv 


eOciv rOv Kaprav eis THY oTeppatikny TeAXciwow. This may be the 


183 


passage Augustine had in mind in writing the above. Euse- 
bius seems to be quoting there from some work dealing with 
images ; and such a work Stobaeus (Ecl. Phys. 1. 25) 
mentions under the title epi dyadwdrwv. If these are the 
words to which Augustine refers they are taken not from the 
mept avodov wox7js (De Regressu animae), but from this epi 
ayakparwv, though Augustine does not mention the latter as he 
does the former. Compare Arnobius, Adv. nationes, 5. 5. sq. 


Sogn 7, itotcam de ioe Eu heme rus: pian - 
diituhtstvortam quam Enniu's: ’in’ Lats - 
nome wer tit él o qui wm ; 

SecrCica Ns Di Nre 4o.0119.. Gg wae ratio mia xine 
tide barbara by Bidh em ero (és t; )@ ae m n’'o's- 
ier ement i) in cic typi rel arto Sn Ve) bt “Svexcil © US, pir aver 
Hen ncete ros. Hniniius,) (Lact; Dive Inst. 1.115 33, 
Sun et WS a wc tommh uh mer W Sus 0.) 5) arles 
Sestas) Lov is etc et er or tim) Gut ditt pas 
Garmin ¢ Ole t hist or iam (Gg we¢.).¢ on.tex- 
Uentve Sy bdvtakel Ss) Vets i nse ri pit lo nit by) u/s. 
Heamec hii storia m) vet) anterp re tat us » erst 
Bama us. et Se cutus. Arnob: Adv, Natt.'4..29., see 
Literary Sources of Augustine, DCD I-X, p. ro. 


SiGw27e ust Os |v anno nds)! ad) Cilaes.a nem 
Prom th Weierm —S.Cr Lip t.o.s. 

"€ompare Lact. Div. Inst. 1.6: 7, in libris rerum 
divi tata mo quos ad Ci. Caesarem..p-on ti- 
fice wm Mma ei Mum oSic-ri pis it. 


Sor rorael st al ecm Oe nous) a Ue tore m> "h'ab- 
(ue e vitae Oram |S amini@am.,aiquo etiam 
hernwn t Giipis wim ‘ph il o's!o'pyh ae’ “no m en) \é x= 
GmtueM. ).. sal SVE Veniie rrolsat ws ‘quid pro- 
Gite netur: phil] os op hum Se) e)s's ere 
spondit. 

The source is uncertain, probably the Hortensius of Cic- 
ero: See’ Tusc. 5. 3. @sq:, De Sen, 21/'78.,; Lact. Div. Inst. 


184 


3.2.16, Pith aerowra's., \ quit ih o1c. pirdinrias: aor 
TAKEN | TUN CORNIE 5 es ee.) ie) Ditiav@-ases” Venus P fap rere 
Gila er elec in iq usem nia! me ysie: “pros litert epee 
T/E1S Pp Onyaae tp h i1,0.s/o.p hams adi ie Sit) sap usadersit- 
Ome Mi yasaipivemn tiaje: dds 13. \r4 5.6 oSeey Whitecany, 
Sources, p. 23. 


B22 ean LON 1 Cie" V.esO ee Wie ft 1S) on dennc espES 
fuat “Thales: Milesius, “unus ol orum 
Sep em: qa \Swajnitsarpep edliitata. ys vavp He cue ersiae 


Augustine’s source here was probably the lost Hortensius 
of Cicero. ‘Compare Lact: Divs:Inst: 3.)16: 12.01 ou tem 
Sus, “ex €0F ploisse) an tie Were 1e%p hd loisserp ne 
[apm 1.O"n ess Sie tsa paveimic Aum) jqmod. pete 
Pim) et 40 na Cosel Ushi ap parieait. Omran dir 
1 nag) uit,’ |) p hyitlioisolp hin | e7s'siey | scrove plemmauneter 
Thales wt ophnor) prim ws 


322.11. AqGwam tamen pPutavat. mena 
esse Pprimctpi am “et hance) o mim tameee 
mie neta mM and.) ips um,.g Ge meu nd usm emert 
quae in veo ¢icnuntuTr exis tere. 

see Cics Acad: prior 2,37, 118) Lahval leis yee 
aqua daxit cons tare (omnia. NiODy x. toe 
Lact. Diy. Inst. 1.5; 16, ibid. 2.19: 18. 


322.10. A. fia x lima nid er eius au d-Wt OF 
He 2 CX) SMtS) Pp aioOwp his pt i mC 1)pe 1 Stenuatsr 
qie: res, nas ci pustavet. — Oaae tee nm 


Principia singularum esse credidit in- 
finatia,, .e tin mum)erab tes im unidiets eno 
Ive we; Vet.) .q-ujase Coa 1g, Use 1) ey VE NS) Foor awa tee 
€ Onsiqoase, mm ain dois) »m odio — dajsistodwiy om0.dr0 
1 CicutiMy sey o nip ie -xG'S fama wade 
seeiCic, IN. .D, 1. 105,25, Ana xdmiaind ti artiem 
Opinie jest, mativos ‘esse “dels, Mamas 
i nityeh vials oridie nitiiis occ denittsgues 
€0sq We ginmim era-bilesa) Essie. tm umdtose 


185 


Wead. prior. 2.37: 118, 1S €nim infinitatem na- 
Hmnae, Gixtt essewve qua omnia gig ne r= 
emnet ut 


322, 24, tste Anaximenen discipulum 
SteesSuceesSOre mM Freloquirt, qui omnes 
feLum Culsas vert tmtiinirto dedit, nec 
Geos metavit aut tacuit: non tam én 
PiMsts) aenem  tactum:. Sed Lpsios  ¢x 
rene BO t.0 Sy 1G fed ta 1 t.. 

See @ic, Acad. prior 2. 37: 118, post eiws audi- 
fOr maxim enes: Lo finitum- aera, sed 
Panqwacce x CO,@rerentwr defini ta j.ei gn 
Bite m  terram | aquam) 1onjem, )\t um) ex 
hich Gan aiias IN. DD) 1.10, 26, Lact. Dive, Inst: 9.15.19; 


A22V 277 Anaad eoras vero (e1u's: audi- 
fom harum serum om natum,; quwas  vide- 
meus) crf fect or, 6m dil Vin um anim um jsen- 
ieament Gi x itverxi i of ton ita) Mater ta. / quae 
Comstanet  Similibms Simter Se. particu 
hiss inie rum. (om ning m (qui bu si suis, 6 t) -p.10/= 
Pais. Stn cml at herd! sie d an imo, fac vente 
diy i no. 

DbecmCic, gAcad., 2:37, 118, JA Mja x a/g O88 a's) | Pmyaj- 
HeoGiam sintinitam, Sed, ex (ea particu 
tase simnubhes inter, Se minwtas;, €as pric 
Mime Om: US aS.) pos tea in oO dine mad - 
cuesteaio atn.e. nite) di vina..)) N.. D. 1. 11. 26. 


322. 32. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis al- 
BoE an Gitom: aenrem quidem dixilt rerum 
easseumateriam, de qua omnia fierent, 
ACU mime sse | Com potem, divin ae) rar 
POuuSe Since g) tl act mrishei lie xe oO Bie ri “<p ors 
Se) 

Sceicicu ND, 1. r222g, ¥en) Quo Diogenes 
mpollomiates utiturtdeo quem sensuwm 
habere potest®aut quam formam den? 


186 


323. 2. JAmaxwagorae SU Ges Sit audios 
etlus “Aimethielans, . E ti am ipsie, id jey preci 
Cults tnmber se .simili bows quad bu sas ime 
Pw) ageaumarerqauve .fi e\r ent), ita putatvit 
COnRS tate, OM Nia ut inessie) eC ftam ) meee 
fm dace sr e:t\.. 

This Archelaus is mentioned only once in the extant 
writings of Cicero, Tusc. 5. 4. 10. Very little is known 
either of his life or of his teachings. No doubt he was dis- 
cussed in the schools in the days of Augustine along with the 
other philosophers. 


323.. 9.) PorO.C ied Liels huius d)i:s, ¢.i/p wilaues 
fila s sce’ (p € rh bre £0 Fy. 

Seé: Cic;  Tuse. 5294, to. cad) “S over act eam qiaia 
Archelauwm-, ~Amaxageorae) (diisiet pu deme 
apd 1 evr aut. 


B23.) 110!) Sipe Tartie’s) ere o | Apt ims Speen 
yersiam! philols oiphtam ad corr io 6 medians 
Comp one nd o's'qiute, mores) ile mits/cie: sme 
mo natant, (¢ um a ate Jit) ums o mnie Ss, Manyapenigs 
physitveis, Vid “est,” natural eb use) 2 espdes 
Perseru famdas operam maximam in- 
Prem Gdlet emt. 

See. Cie) Acad, ‘priors 7, 74..15,9 Socrates minha 
Videtur primus a) ce Diws Jove cultas Je tran 
ipsa natura i neviowl Wt 1s in quibus 
omnes-anite eum philosophi occupati 
fmerunt; avecavisse philos op hiyaamecen 
adi 4vitiam, CoO mmiuniewm ,.adid-a. x Wssie) jab acre 
Vite Ueteeb 1.8 /\/ fests, aveiit dais omninoque de 
bonis Tie Dots Cae malis Gl ae ine rca: 
Tusey 2-448, 5304.8, 5.4.20, Sie Grr aitieys garditrean api 
mws Iphilosophiam -devocavr1rt 7 7eoje lo 

€t4)Coegit. die. wita det mor 1p caer 
busiquve: bonis et madlis quaereres eDetmn: 
5,1 294 Song) Laety Div. Inst. 3.13.6) 3; bee, ia ee meee 


187 


S24. ae) Nie Te OmMme ss ays hn Oran Cianiswe 
vel dissimulata scientia hep ore “mri ial 
Diliedkisisie rendie tye tls sim a cwmr ban, i 
Hale ea oO Wtea S She vat a en) V.eh Ss, avs,s et. 

Cicero seems, to be the source, See Acad. 2.15.15: 
fea cum, fallin d ,duee met at quae, sien tice t, 
Pie wte® “Uti ~sOlitws: erst ‘ea: di,s si mu 
Payee mes nq Game) Gin ave.ct! cpaveay v0 Cain ts 
iSO ibe) ae, 74. De Divze72e) cso: De,Off, 1. 30.. 108, 
WevOrat. 2:67, 270, Brut,.292, Derinv., 1. 31-53. 


g24.00. Sea veum pros tea tila ipsa, quae 
piu bl ice e damnaverat, Atheniensium 
Cuyireas publice lus re tin “d wos: ae € u's a’- 
homes C1 s us que, adie o populr indig na- 
home COnVerSa, wt unmus €orium op’ pres 
Sse y i Mil tit dintis. tn therinret ~ ex ilno 
auocm volunmtarro atquée per pie tuo po e- 
mee Sli tem, a Wher vewa de. -e-t,. 

It is difficult to discover Augustine’s literary source here. 
We know of no extant account from which Augustine might 
have taken this. Compare Diodorus 14 37 (ad fin.): dd/kov 
d€ THS KaTyyopias yeyevnmevys 6 Sypos peteweAHOy THALKODTOV avdpa 
Gewpav avnpypevov : did7ep Tovs KaTyyopnoavtas Oi 6pyns etxe Kal TEAOS 
dxpirous dméxrewev, which account differs considerably from that 
given by Augustine. Compare also Diog. Laert. 2. 43: 
"AOnvaio 8 ciOds pereyvwoov wore KAEioat Kai waXdaloTpas Kal yupvacva 
Kal Tovs pev epuyddevoav, MeXirov Se Pavarov xatéyvwoav which still 
differs from Augustine. It is probable that Cicero in one of 
his now lost works related this story, and that Augustine got 
it from him. Cicero probably treated of Socrates and 
and the Socratic philosophy in the Hortensius, where it would 
be natural for him to record the death of Socrates. 


Sea 22g wid am “Swim mam) jbo num, esse 
Grecerent | volwmpthatem. Gsicuwt, Aristip: 


pus. 


188 


pee Cie.) Acadarz. 42./1391,) alia (volo part em 
fine m esse) wo lueru nt -qulon wn pain ceps 
Air’ Stipe pws: hi qui) (S 0 ¢ratteim i a wad emt 
id. De Minny 19827126, 22: 6.18, 2.7.20), ee 70, peace Digg 
Test, Bs. Fo Fisss.00: 


24.724) qQuitdam ‘vir tut em ))) st eat) eo 
Eu SE Hve nn. fers: 

See Tusc. 5. 9. 26. No doubt Cicero was the literary 
source—probably in the Hortensius. 


325.06.), tn: 9 “Ave oy ip tio did iert.) (Pr agian 
Giaecu n quae jpmiacnia | allie ~hvacb.e bramien 
aati tee, donc e Diam tia t. 

See Cic. De Finn 5,29: 37,.,C ur Pla 0) Avemay 
{tm periaigravrt ut a ss alce rd ot tb uisesane 
bea ris?) num eT O7s . est, eyo.e Testi a= saveie epee 
et? Apul, Dedog.. Plat: 1. 3 ((Hildebrand’s edition) = Vert 
astrolog¢iam, .adias que, yA ey pt my eve 
petitum.,. wt. jiinid’e (pt op bie tact) eres 
e.t1-dsm, acd dissic eet.  Lacts Div. Inst. 4,-2.4: 


B25, 7.0 6€ to tn die= 1m ‘e/a Sista ave m Deaprteces 
Vie Mile ms u bi Py t bia sO e-0)r Gam fama 
exe ecb tie pra tilre est 

pee, Cic. De Minn, 5.29.57, € Ur post, © ast ea cam 
ad. Ape hy t am? cur acd at ealivqaro sb y eimas 
046-0780 | USC) 312 29s 630.4 La. tome im, fe Fe be 
Py t hea oO: r€.0'S) 6 0S ne0:S Cet et, in. tralian 
Vie 12S .e jet. dad ici ce, Puy hid: S ow em eum 
mia... Apul.. Dedog: Plat. 2.3.(Hildebrand’s edition) = bet 
aid, Jetialivam), sictie wr uns ive a14,'f) jet) SPay ease oma 
60S Eurytatum(?) Lanremtin@m et sene 
botem,~ArTrchytam siectatus, Augustine) may 
here be following either Cicero or Apuleius. 

a5 ie. Ltagie (Ci mM “situlidaoum o's ap here 
trae) a)! actione «et, Conten pilatimome 
Verse tur, daiadie unas plas) ves Fae Binveas, 
altieravac ontem pla tivia) dics pocest. 


. 
= 


189 


This two-fold division of sapientia Augustine probably 
found in Cicero’s Hortensius. Compare De Trin. 14. 19. 26. 
Haan rc On t em pla tive) Sa pie Mt aM... .ebe 
Ceceiwo. commen dan sm iia fine, dialog 
HVvonr te nS 11: 


Bay aie2e eT) On Cen enbartoy ui tt ul mg. uve) ft ucns 
Sen do) pil tl os.o,p hal arm pre tf ele 1s s.e) | avudia = 
leu Usa mui ot esi npia tt eis eo tSit rab also: 
een) SIMON a, le my (Gg) uae max ime) 1p) ac tione 


Wier Svavt air; al tee cra) ma My ast aa, Lect) WGh ul ane 
Gow te mip last. Om 1, die pustrajtas€sit ste rT tit acm 
Mave nal em “quia, vy erju mid ist eriman at ur 


A tals @o. 


It is impossible in the extant works of Plato to find this 
three-fold stoic division into ethics, physics and logic. Such 
a division was developed by some later interpretors of or com- 
mentators on Plato such as we find in Cic. Acad. 1. 5. 19, 
Baht.) ers O iam ac c.e prwa ny ocae\ sb sl av tionmne 
ame mont tai Pier sn Guima edhe:  Wolit ay) feql, ein Or tl bos. 
aeMtHe Tia Hale) ipa tbiksea “etl relb us: oe caw tics 
Memmitinan wide! :diisis en endo) e°t) ¢qiu did) vseirmasm 


qm ria lisiimy quid” ‘tec tum) jini ora tivo me 
Datum ew Gd COM sen ties pq aids) 1e.- 
PoEeSmanms,-essiet 1udican do, )) This may) have 


been the source from which Augustine derived the above 
statement, but it is more likely that this three-fold divis- 
ion was an established one in the philosophy of Plato as taught 
in the schools of Augustine’s day. Lactantius Div. Inst. 3. 4. 
.12, mentions duo philosophiae genera, but he also 
gives the three divisions of philosopny, viz: moralis and 
physica (Dv.v. Inst. 3. 7. 1) the former of which seems 
to correspond to ethica (Inst. Epit. 28. 13), and third 
Noycmnsmpmerest.pans jillha.) phirlosophiae 
Mertiay Guam vocamt Ac, im quia tota 
iimadwocicthe.ay et) omnis johoqwen diy ratio 
Sometime tur (Dm Inst. 3. 03. 4, Inst. Epit. :30.)5): 


190 


This three-fold division of Lactantius into moralis or 
ethica, physica and doy«y corresponds to Augus- 
tine’S \mefa led). ona tur ahem and matwo mar 
lem.  Weshould note here also the passage in Apuleius, 
De dog. Platonis, which (in Hildebrand’s edition book 1, 
chapter 3)reads ut primus tripartitam philo- 
Sophiiam,. co pularet ‘si bi qule) mvc em 
hecCessari as partes neque p wigma£ eo 
per se tan fumm oda /\sed) et ia ny (ml ites 
Avast Sat OxSet veut dsenmeentys Nam 
qgquemvis ide “daversis of ficimis (h aec ven 
essent philoso phiae membra Sus cepta, 
masta Iisa | MB yatehvare Or eres) Cite enc ateine ed 
atque m-ocalis jab ipso Soler adtiis ) io mie 
num taimen ex “olmni bus et quasi pio: 
Desi |-prdatu-s wCfomriprals. Ye five © Tit, 


307. 25.0 Avle.x a midje ©, Mac e7dio, iS Gre iba pecan 
Mavi tea) § ibn /a9.m ae mo Ganabiis tae) Siareeg om 
Pum, A elo yp t tom usm) qar.o dam, Te.om ye pia tien 
facta... i. Wimens emam) vet, pelle sgpurace 
Rew hatia: my sit.enGa, pete nis, adm onet ane 
exand rum, iat, ) cium ea matt) €o nse Gi pire 
ins tnwia vier ity, fils si pie at) cio mieages 
Maan 1. 


There are several notices of letters of Alexander the 
Great to his mother, Olympias, but we cannot decide which 
one of these, if any, is the one referred to here by Augustine. 
I examine the evidence somewhat in detail, because this is 
professedly one of Augustine’s sources. 


Compare DCD VIIL, 27, ,sicut, Leone (sia cem- 
dote Yomo denitie, aid Oly mipiva die m meat rT ea 
Scmibwate Al ex and erm DED Ua or fila sepa 
tulacAtex andri “Magny ad )ODy mip tiadiem 
miactc eum Ss 0am) -ql/d Mh Lys eri pis t Pia ee 
tionem be u tusid-am. Ave@y p tid) (sac end ots 
ins in wens J. figiaiam. Gpaolt mat ie ie Lrenneies 











191 


Mee saicciaey apwudyiiios” babe re it ur’, 
Go. nvti nvert! | eitdia my mera)” qraiaé:) Gra'dé'c'a 
quogdtwe novit historia: Such is the informa- 
tion which Augustine gives us in reference to this epistle of 
Alexander the Great to his mother. Plutarch, Vitae. Alex. 
27, SayS: avrds dé ’AXeLavdpos ev emiatoAy mpos THY pyTépa dyot 
yeyovevar Twas ait@ pavteias amoppytovs Gs adros éraveAOav dppacer 
mpos povyv exeivyv. That this epistle is the one to which Augus- 
tine refers we cannot say. Zumetikos (De Alexandri Olympia- 
disque epistularum fontibus et reliquiis. Berlin 1894. p. 44) 
thinks that it is not. Arrian 6. 1. 4 speaks of a letter of 
Alexander to his mother : xat 61) xat rpos tHv ’OAvpmidda ypapovta 
brép tov "Ivdav THs ys GAG Te ypaiar Kai dre SoKoin att@ eLevpyKevat 
tov NeiAov tas ryyas .... which cannot be the one referred to 
by Augustine. Aulus Gellius, 13.4. 1says In plerisque 
Tyo nN. 1, M.em, tis Th eny Wa.) abe A. he x anvdimo (gies 
Basten “eibusp au lo, anat ey an Wa biro | M.. Viare 
mOpnarS “Gide aS GC tapes: Gs t Ores tie S "evel 
der ins anian Olly m ptad em) Poh ili p pl Wxs0.- 
RCH iret ihvid Sys time eis rip sa. sis. Leo 1m ys 
maverxia nde oO fil tor, Nea. Cum | 71S, "oad 
imienem tta Scripsisset: Rex Alexander 
Iovis Hammonis £ili-urs Oy m privat 
Mairi sa lat em Givexint ee Oley Mn. puleays em 
fiers emi p sit. & i. . Lertullian: Séems’ to, refer /to:. the 
same letter as Augustine (De Pallio 3): quod Aegyp- 
Pim muca adit, et, Ale xan dieory din een & ye t 
iinaee G py le,avit. die) tiem pre State “O'siridi1s 
Gyua yead: sitio vex Libya, A mimion, faert 
OVE dilly Lavoe): . See also id. De Corona 7. Compare 
also Cyprian, De idolorum vanitate 2 (works BE vol. 2. 588) 
VOSGH Cadi Ae xiamedi eae sMia on ws: 41'S ig ni 
WO MMMnibienve ad, ma. tee mens Uam' s.¢ rib it, meta 
SeULaseu Pp Oe Ss tia CS \p moditiuim, ) sfiib?) die j-dais 
he minibus a Sacerdote secretum ; 
Minucius Felix, Octavius, 21. 


192 


That this epistle was well-known we gather from the 
words of Augustine DCD XII. 11 illa epistola (p. 
527. Ti) and. q4iva.é Om a x.iim’ € >in Dorr Wit A(py5 26,19). 
Augustine seems to have been familiar with the contents of 
this letter. 

He speaks of the same Leon De Consensu Evang. 1. 23. 32: 
Nii qauiiida vert”. I'e'on tlie. “sia crest duo si Ale aay pr 
ti ws. pore.ta. vel a cadem i cms Sf udta. equi 
Macedon Ale xandro diwersam (qurdem 
au Cae Com Gm VO pi nO e 1's; Orr Mim) Vdc. Omnium 
Oot nem iy enwm tamvem dtay (pit Orava am 
Cos "h omuenvre sr Puisse (declare th Anois 
(Adv. nationes 4. 29) speaks of him as Pellaeo Leonte 
and as one of those who could prove omnis istos, 
nobis qiaie Ss “inidiucitas a Uque: ay p.p-cylieascaiss 
deos, homines fuisse-vwhich may have been 
the same work as that referred to above by Augustine. 


S91.) 20: aie ge a Ses ewe. braun byes animum 
CONC L pre 16) '.m.o tt joinie's, |) qpucars?) | avupupie tavaatin 
evvotas. 

see Cic. ‘Tus¢. 1.24.57, notion es > qu as levoras 
Vio ic ame De Ninn, «4.16. 20. Acads 2.9.) 22.02) To. 3O Wer 
qq abou; Ss. ve ff ie dar nota: ono tae Iara) ae Gem noaiaas 
Graeci tum éwolastum mpodjfas vocant. 


332 25. qa kh Whdicctulntain nT) yavdidaditsisie: Site ae 
tia Soe nas bo mo Cua Yorn ord: Saypsp ed iia tine 
Cox t Taki sere Wi Si. 

See Cicip Tuse.95035..85 se trial ee n Gia, |biomno = 
Pm, Mh aex ma andi min os"ee: win da’ -clor plordss 
exit eit na test Tay, or. “which, » es *thew ea eis 
equivalent'to (ex t'rins e Gus 5; see’ also” De Finn) 3: 13: 
43, and Apuleius De dog. Plat. 2. 2 (Hildebrand’s edition) 
where afterthe bonum primum and secundum 
a) third asveiven: "a cic41 dens) a wit'e my “bro, mine verert 
Gt 0 pateacta ir) 9 qo u.ovd.)), \e:ouF prow da avEre Dora 
Venven tip gs ext.) 1's 6 culs cop wlan es 


193 


Scare NING Viaeese sit COM mem Ora re 
Pala tiornve ms dé tec mana ssc £ i nee m boni 
Srscnsecun dum  Vartwtem “vivere et 564 
Solivevyveminekp os se. qui. no titaam: Dei 
faphe at et, ian. ta tiiom-em.) nec e’ss eal iam 
Gocaumsam beatwimys "ideo g ue n on @ubi- 
tat hoc ersis€ pl iiorsro pha rit amar é 
Deum . 

e394. 207 op Sum autem) v.eruim ' a€ su m)- 
mum bonum Plato dicit Deum. 

Augustine of course did not read Plato in the original, 
and he has not in mind here any particular passages of that 
author. What Augustine gives above is found in substance in 
the writings of Plato, but is not explicitly stated. | No doubt 
he is giving rather a Neo-platonist inference from Platonism. 


gag. 12 (Sa pip ata tia temporum ratio 
quae eh ro nica hast Oma: Cio, bai ne: tka 
Eebat om em wold te ayt ja, bt em pro rie. q.t0) pr ol: 
paest’a Vit Le me minicar, «ese na aap ferme 
Bners | OOS t ea malta mf wissen, Ug i) cum 
Meco 2 in ta, et) wnt mM vix1s set ab an no 
Meo Ss, Cull, Ss) us que ad id) em p.ws, G).-wo 
Peolwomae ws - rex, ACny pth seni pturas 
Peeve pie tt-Gas)  -g em tis ve b raeor am die 
hides “poposei:t et “per: “se ptu a ginta 
wero sy. ke b rare Orsic, 2° . (c,d eer pirieit.a nm dia’s 
imaebre medias gue SCUrLa vit Gann) reip er ans 
bur terme) sex a einta: 

Jerome Chron. of Euseb. (BE vol. 8, col. 367) 
Hieremias prophetare orsu’s ‘inthe year 1386 
of Abraham or in the third year of the thirty-seventh Olympi- 
ad; andin the year of Abraham 1592, or in first year of the 
eighty-ninth Olympiad Plato nascitur Athenis 
which statements make a much longer period than the cen- 
Pies ive mame: ) ‘a rinye's of Augustine. Plaie 
moritur_ inthe year of Abraham 1672, or first of the one 


194 


hundred and ninth Olympiad; and Ptolomaeus 
Phila delpihws ..). 4 @diwpeas:) 7s Gra pitimnas 
in Graecam sv o,¢ em \ex Hoeb rae aging 
pew LAS Xs setier pret es | tans beet ae 
vit inthe year of Abraham 1736, or first year of the one 
hundred and twenty-fifth Olympiad. 

Neither of these statements agrees with those of Augus- 
tine, as the first of Jerome (1592-1386) gives 206 years for 
centum ferme annos of Augustine, and the sec- 
ond 64 (1736-1672) for ferme sexaginta. Itisim- 
possible to say on what authority Augustine has based his 
calculations. Another place where he has recorded the cor- 
rection here given on the statement cum quando 
pierre xitiin Aegyptum,  Hiere maam aus 
dtiss se. (vied) S.ehcl pi tiaras), pao, pie) thease 
eadem peregrinatione leeitsisie) us toundam 
Retract 2.4.2: (Ht) in, (eco "gq aod dix») De rten- 
porum historia sanctum Ambrosium solvisse quaestionem, 
tawmrg/ u'aim ! (eolarett an eat We Tint) se lat owe dr 
Hieremias, ‘me fefelli£ (memoria. 


338. 12, (6a iq wae bmauita ba litca)) facta sues 
non Sint, ve hve em tei) ho cee ago he muie 
et diligentissime ,commendayit. 


Here we have an inference from Plato rather than a refer- 
ence to any specific statement. Augustine no doubt made 
this statement from his knowledge of Neo-Platonism. It is 
found implicitly in Plato. Compare Philebus 22 and 60 B-C. 


339-45. Calm), Aur i/S tio. e128) Pilta tiomasi ioe 
Cie punliegsn hk he) elite Sees am Pies 1 pa tie t ineraym 
condidirsset, quod deambulans) dic pu 
ta he vcs We vy eb ac. 

See Gic. Acad, 1:.4.. 17:4 Piet? prank e tics Ld cits 
Sunt Quia disp wtaban ty 4 namem Paimiens 
in.* Ta yierenor 








1g5 


S992 20: ap Os team Omnem “vero Pla tio nats 
Spe Usp ts .4 Otomds, E€1us  f£ilius Et 
MAE MNOre ta Ce;Ss - 

See Cics Acad.at 4caig sat) Gy 34-0) De Orat.. 3. 18; 67: 


839.30. .64 habe nmws ‘sen ten tiam P'la- 
mOMmnes) | duiCcle ml tdss. Om mers: id eos ‘bono S* esse 
Mecwe Sse Om nt no allude o rum  maltemic 

Augustine here is not referring to any specific passage in 
Plato, but is giving an inference from his teachings. What 
Hevgivessassthe Sententiam Platonis is not éx- 
pressly stated in Plato, but is implied—compare Theaetetus 
176C, and Republic X 378-380 especially 379 A-B. See note 
PretO7. 1. 


S40) ar.) Ojuidy emniijpmy pdie: Uusdis\iksicia en peas 
Ea eeO Se Sei ty morta e€/S t. cum ipo ars 
pes Oss... 6 OMS ee, sea-vii trate pp. I lre nidtos.. 

pee note p. 69: ro. 


S40710; (Pas ce ites “tr pba) (ef tame emea,- 
Pian sieis Se nun ty) Tato Ina tim do anitiie r= 
Si wes: yia lium ss. . ® 

Bee mote ps, 17S: 17: 


S4r tO OM Di dm. tn gu Lunt , a mim ali um, 
PueOruiab iS) e.S t Vamim al ration aliis 3. tra 
Pete ed iv aeSdvo- es f am dteio.s,” bh orm i nes 
@iarem0'N€-S: . 

This three-fold division is assumed in Plato and Apuleius. 
Compare Plato, Symposium 202 kat yap wav TO dayoviov péraéy 
éott Oeov te kai Ovnrov. De Legg, 8. 848 D, ibid. 10. 906A. 
Evppaxor d€ Huiv Geol te Gua Kai daipoves, ypets O° ad KTHpaTa Gedy Kal 
dayovev. But Augustine had in mind Apuleius when he wrote 
fiecmabuve swords. ( qulaery GMiice ty ap ud  -a,l1ors 
Mime dukes te perian (wre Apuleius  t.a,mien 
Pbatronicus Madau ren sis die. hvarc nie 
Tein, Senrip sit lab may. _ \l.30): - Apu 
leius in the De deo Socratis begins (Hildebrand’s edition, 


196 


chap. 1: vol.°2./p, arr) Plato “ommem Wa tweam 
rerum qwod e1uws ad ‘amwrimalia'praceipue 
Plein. Meat eotwrttoacr iam —ddevnersuinin He then 
begins with the gods whom he first discusses (to chap. 3 p. 120 
in Hildebrand’s edition); then he passes on to discuss men 
(tain die muguaceo rat 1 one mdie,"cia-e ont nm phen 


ram die wv o'G.a/b 0 en qua praccipwam 
ani mayl hom, in e:S: Ss womiwis)) , and in- chap. veahie 
takes up demons, Ce ter aim Sin, t| ‘qa. deaam 


diy Mare) simerG tase pot 6S fa tess in tie se, Gomi 
Dywadn a-entihe Ta Ve ean th ignya St esr nr ay Sie 
Giriae.cul )n!O mi ne) batpovas pnt. neat p) am ey, 


5 4 INOS 


341. 33.) 6X) G. WO. ore ner © nm m iar iene 
Crates shiabebat. aidan et amy vet fam icintaa 
qd wad am) Hciomee a) i atm: ta! iq aie) pxenn hier. 
fur so lvtus jad mio ne ray ut) desist etmeitnas 
age ndiov, gq uca mide ad quo d laseem es aworeiac. 
HO Dp £/0.S:p 6 Tes Mi wie ria tee wie aa tyr ne a 


Compare Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19 (Hildebrand’s 
edition: vol. 2, p: 154): Oiwo d sald helm, Mimeele prea 
SOC¢hati) Guaepiam) dae monet lert em amare 
Pro ha bit wim) tbat) na oq am: va d hrowit.ale wan 
qeulo,d/ ania odo /ra'tro praedicta .ect.. Hmim 
SOG Ta teisy, su tip ot ev ir 4a pop 6 ime: pees t ever 
tse; X, Sve Se), cad: (0 Mm nvinay levomporr qivecn tide tsielan 
Ot PC ia). p FiO,.myp tas: Mana ilo, a'doh ow; banteounte 
Wg iam 10 -ditgie bia they ate veto (p mieash aioe 
Oe DOM Un quai, Sm quill bus 4 oT be become 
20Gbws: 6.10 S perieu Pum ‘Ss ube pat. Wt, aeeme 
Vis Resphidece CeauVaede.£.. OuM st be Tye. | sevoceupoiea 
imMpraesentiarum quae tutius viel, pos ten 
Capessecet vel ala acc ia: ladon ta ent 


342.04, Veit €N iM laprer t 16s, me, vente 
plosissime asserit non illum, dewm fmisse 
s'eid, dia em one m’. 


197 


See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19, quoted in last note 
(p.7g41...33). et al. 


jae 6. pen tiniaicitea nase ast amy Pl ait.o nts .dié 
diegorumsublimirtate et hominum humili- 
racumre ti) Chae deo Mili, \me dike t ate: . Ss en't/é m= 
£ team. 

See De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
Pep witS) oe ryOsss nam que, Tounctos deos/ 10 
PUD ta eb vet wise Ver t1ce ioc atios again 
enapae ss dieios, abe hiotmeimibsu's. play tm am 
dsstiense netics ioe i) (sabldim itra'te chaps.5 ss 4 
Cmnnnio? hom in esa idti1s ) “tmmort ali biua's 
Bemorcenle meipred ant ua valtiqru ie (im) “hvaere, -t.elni 
Moe tartaranele @antiulr: chap: 6,for the dem- 
ons qu aveid aim; «duilvi niale, mie dii;aie pro tiesitiart e's 
Pane th. Ss immu (ajet herial etiin fiym as: ter 
ras) vand he also speaks of\'them ass corpore.aéria 


(chap. 13). 


BAe 6 Pl at.o ext iva mS tn Om ad 21S. Gu01S sab 
Mowe Hanan a contagione sem ov1t. 


Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition, 
Vow pettS)ime a DL hum a hha ¢ OM tae One opto: 
cul discretos, though here not avowedly on the au- 
thority of Plato; compare the rest of the chapter, also chap. 
Gon blates authority (respon derit enim (Plato 
PUGET emLemtia Silda moja) voce), Neigiuve 
Si Muevos C@Ceura rerum humanarum sed 
Somuecratione: Sola removi. Compare Plato, 
Symposium 203. A, eds b€ avOparw od pelyvuTa, 


S425 23 idvero's a) daremomi bus! tam) diwli- 
MemrLcah) Cop io Sie gure Gis Cent. 
See chap. 6 (De deo Socratis). 


Bag cA. Nad dé Mori bus. cor wm 3’ .eum 
Memo mM nibs:  CMmMeralbiter loqweret uF, 


198 


nO, Solin nit hal) (bo meigidia x ts e.d sesraeaain 
plurim um mali. 

This seems to be a rather unfair criticism on the part of 
Augustine of the statements of Apuleius in the De deo So- 
cratis. We cannot see how Augustine could say nihil 
boni dixit. Surely chap. 6 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2, p. 128) is against this: inter homanes ‘colela = 
Goul avsiq/al 6 Wie Gt Ores, yhiine 4ipriere uy) gala 
domorum, Guivjwhtroy-cit re portantrhime 
pleltitionés onde suppetias: cem quiidam 
imterp pPetiess vet) Saline eri. ne 5 Pihescsoncd 
other like offices of the daemons mentioned by Apuleius make 
Augustine’s criticism (nihil boni dixit) untrue. Of 
course Apuleius has also very unfavorable things to say against 
the demons, for which compare chaps. 12 and 13. In chap. 
16 Apuleius speaks of the better kind of demons: sunt 
autem LT Mon posterior)  miuimier oO: opiraie 
Stan el ord \i Monee? pation Heatley \sipresG aes 
ala wid “auie us tus ee nous 4 dia /eum.o. nim ques 
Sé€m per “a corporis CO mip eda Duis Alibre 
Certis. po vesit-at 1 ibis (ce uitan b. 


248.18. Sierpenti bus get etiam deme 
Sita tunica sen.ec-t ut €m tde prom ene vac ume 
in. funy emntiarm,. miedilr €. fore isi debe meinen 

See Pliny HH. Nog. 27, 90.) a nS Uias ha bre Lan Omceern 
INnembrana COrportls “obda ct a’ -fenpinesaala 
Suco 1m. pedimen tim situd) em wataanaent 
dws ie. vyern a tibides src. 0 hreroupihanassaunns 
Ale cit Oot. eS. ta mon es “nr Ord) Or vests (Sutera amperes 
Semectwtem exuere. As Augustine has elsewhere: 
in the DCD XV. 9 XV. 12, mentioned Pliny and quoted from, 
though without naming, the Historia Naturalis, it is likely 
that here also Pliny is his authority, if indeed a literary source 
is required. 

S44 a Ae) enim, “vy ela taliiaw c.em ea ealeca 
do fatigantur vel refictendu my ali mene 





22) 


Basic Om pws hha blem i ternam rep etunt 
Macaie avGuarerqiiie im even ea dd). pa situa) iqmord 
dravewmeO; 61S on Guinigtonit.. On, fac isan ts. 


Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 8 (Hildebrand’s edition, 
Melweniia BoA) moc mpi eem im Wi llisy. vicit us 
Sammy is enian |) tex bids cleat d em, sipva-b.ulwms ibilj- 
Gretmis (Cup DiinlsGess me aren, tO, ml) q,0,0.d) a eu ais pr o-x 4 = 
Mel Mppom hae) wv listiam do. trans wierbernant. 
Gee tam sey: vl lisy | £6: Sia.) Sm ti +r em Lona 
Pe inta tui herra, Seu) portus. .est. .. That 
the demons do not come to earth for rest or food, as the birds 
do, is rather implied than stated by Apuleius. Compare De 
deo Socratis, chap. 9. 


Baa tO. ONvame et ita ratio “Pla to.mirs.. 
Gime lemem ta, qilatt wor” ‘pro po rtivo ne 
Comoe vit | ateane Tordinat. Gta ‘doa bras 
eerme mis.) be nt) mrosbul bivsis tm 6 é€ t it ieurxra'e 
mpm obi i, jmedaa yd uo, aerem. et) laiquam 
Wieie GL steur i eonSh: 

Compare Plato, Timaeus 31 B, 60ev é« zwupds kal yns TO Tod 
TavTos apxopevos Evviotava. copa 6 Oeds erole.... 32 B, ovtw dy 
Tupos TE Kal ys Vowp dépa te O Heds év péeow Deis, kal mpds GAAnAa Kal” 
doov qv Ouvatov ava Tov aitov Adyov arepyacdpevos, 6 TL TEP Tp TpOS 
d€pa, TOUTO aépa pos vouwp, Kal 0 TL anp ™ pos vowp TOUTO vowp pos yn, 
Evvednoe Kat Evveatynoato oipavov dparov Kat amrov. Id. De Legg. 
to. 889 B, wip kai vdwp Kal yqv Kai dépa pice mavra eivar Kat TOXH 
gact, Augustine found this in Cicero’s translation of the Ti- 
maeus.. See DCD XIII: 16: Compare Apul. De dog. Plat. 1, 
chap. 7 and chap. 11. 


BAA 22s het) iepis ee) ‘Grualip, pie: Api let us, ic um 
Sethe riiswmie tre /S tix anim ace ho mine m divedts 
See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition). ° 


Basa a tier t ad les ‘per tine re diy in a- 
HigOea €°S) . aU fl Loum), and Sp tc um , vatum 
Peeve SvO,myn 1°OvG Wyld 5 44 


200 


See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 14 (Hildebrand’s edition 
vok 2.0p; p-/a42)e 

3946. 10... "re rt ut bat 1/0 (Fels. etiam FY equisare 
Gir aie (ce “arades’ sd 1c ‘tur er uiinidve” Wha vars onl er 
yocare animo passiva, quusica: Mvee re 
parm | “die aie bio)! Warados*. \“ipia's Saco ws naiinc emer 
tur Smo tas) mim comrt ra. Arai ta‘omm- eum. 

See’ Cie Pusey 3.4) 9/3). mam. sre liq ave qruror- 
qine, pie rtm bia t woimie's: Gani ai, ) ior ma ave iny exc, 
paid sien vers). ieee at nrdrirace Mares €n' im 
fier ee eas imi o.d i) qulae Grave ci> aaty- ap pe 
lant. i bie) eae as) to; *qaiare iGariane Cane eraug 
wore ant, 1.0 bis, —perturbiat Lome sed pypremr 
ati mate is place t yquita mm? m.07 bios.) bide 
6. 1, De Finn. 3: 10:35.) Paisisi'o! Vis /alater Latin word 
and belongs especially to ecclesiastical Latinity. 


848. 13. First diate muomees\ "ard “dievors wpae see 
fre ramet )pirie cies ¢ hom imma» et asi nidtenmard 
hous ines., Wan plet©a tea GC ulale |p Ors Gm mete 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 1. 6 (Hildebrand’s edition): 
Cette rium, ‘sumt quia €:dia midi avessmuedmare 
Pot es tates! 1 nt en) Ss. im migmi eave tuber: aewegs 
iat i,m as tie. tas in isto inn eas aitare 
ace tell SS Prachi O40) (Oe Gal acs Merten duercuivane-tadud 
mostra te.t mien ita fa dy odie os Cio m muemanuie 
bios) 1G rave ei noma NE _ Saluoves) Unie) ul psa 
int et nom i nreisin() Cole he orlsa Siq ey me lciia merse 
hw oie) pre eum. un de id ome 7 wim. Vqualit oto 


Cltpo portant, hinie. peiriitaiomie se miamidee 
SuUppetilas ceu quidam wtrins que Amrer- 
Pee miersmrere ( sracl tit iso entenie The original of this is 
found in Plato’s Symposium 202 E. Compare also Apul. De 
dog. Plat. 1. chap. 12; Daemonas vero.... minis- 


tros decorum (arbitratusr jew sitio desiree 


349.52. (ft eC tas! \\a vel iiine lana ay shia mimes 
thd Ml Sit-e cent per hi bem ton. nonne in 


201 


dew o;die'e 1m frapbp aise oe ee 1 C er é com- 
Meth Ora ts esS.en GOmSecrhiptum: et (‘ei @ wi 
Pine heGe rity Stup ete aim (Cons tre uta im 7 

We cannot say in which of Cicero’s works this reference 
was found, and this fragment of Cicero seems to have remained 
unnoticed by the editors of his works. Augustine’s words ap- 
pear to be the only authority for ascribing such a statement to 
Cicero. It would be most natural to assign it to the De Legi- 


bus. 
Compare veliny: oN. sy 28.) 25.275, Gut di?) mon: eit 


heoctmeipsSarim in duodecim tab.wilis 
Mima Swen to diet Core S) ex Cam €.aisist 77, 
diso Apuleius Apologiaia7: Mag ia. /1S tay adios. E'S 
epitome sibs del Gesatias, aun) tn die, sa nti 
Guuguituys) id uode ciomy €abulis, prop ter. gn= 
ceed an dras) fir.uie a m Wigtexcesb mats.» Wuaib eure 
duvet a . 

sag; 9.) Ap uille i ws! it p sie) nung uid) sap ad 
Cigiis tian os )iuid tees die mide 16 1s) art 
Disha € CUSa tus est? 

This was the case which was brought by Pontianus, 
Sicinus Aemilianus and Sicinus Pudens, at the instigation of 
Herennius Rufinus, against Apuleius on the charge of having 
used magic arts and spells to win the love of Prudentilla a 
widow and mother of his friend Pontianus. See Apuleius’, 
Apologia or De Magia, which was the defence of the author 
on this occasion. Has Augustiue any authority for writing 
wd Christianos iudiceés? " Sofaras? know 
there is no authority for it and it is probably a misstatement. 
See note given in Oudendorp’s edition of Apuleius vol. 3. p. 
(oo tehamedicnn lili \et-h niiciyo mn eis, Cl. M.axt- 


(se At rieac,. priocomsul,,. et) alii,,qwi 
MmiasGoms iio. er ange.) OQwoad (ut alia, tes- 
Pimenna taceam) in hac Apsa oratione 
charissime aud pra e\ te, pik aes er t.1 m eo 


toe o "abi Apuleius ‘Mercuri: srgillum 
ime manus Maximmi tradrt: 


202 


349. 27. \ELiius autem ,prhyulosce p hay lar 
EON TVC4 10 Pive.S1's'S-i mi a) eft. | sdiaise 1761s Siimya 
Clxatualitan POumIay GaiwON 

For the question as to the unity of the Apologia see 
Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 1, proleg. p. 40; and Oudendorp’s 
edition vol. 3, p. 485. It must be said that a careful reading 
of the Apologia gives one the impression of its being an 
Guijateo Jand noty dia, oc lainbye it « 


a54.7 190. Nidamiidiicvem sia: den iid ism El egeymmers 
Aegy ptiws, quem tris mie? insition, woeanit. 
Se mist (e:t.istewrap sm eh: 

Under the name of ‘Epujs Tpropeyoros very numerous 
works were in circulation in the early Christian centuries. 
These works professing to be from Hermes were of a Neo- 
Platonizing tendency in the struggle against Christianity. 
The work of Hermes referred to above by Augustine is the 
Adoyos TéAevos translated into Latin by Apuleius under the title 
of Asclepius, sive Dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti, a dialogue 
between Hermes and his pupil Ascelepius (Huius Aegyp- 
Pia:  wiew bia Si Gut) ihn! sn O:st cea, Bie let eaten 


Im tech pire t,a; tia) stain t)) 4) sseesbact.Div.- inst Ong, 
ut é i juny liG ale aim Rie raw i eat artium 
Sie Hie aie day yi) Der 1:Spm 6), iS) 6 €0 sno mM en) ya ne 


pomenith. /)\Devira. Det ics els) JEexr me Sc ayn enim 
Cicere .2ite. insu, e 1.0% (dd. €.0 cua) ayprike 
AWeCeAy (pit 1:0 Syahia bier tay esukm) arsichl litese tamancm 
ob Vit rt uot ean minitltiias umiq ue artium 
S Cvipemmpitiiaimn, Term ax i i 0S) TiO im Ina yt  S enseiae 
His teachings are mentioned often in the works of Lactan- 
tius. 

355. 6. sq. For the quotations on this page see As- 
clepius, chaps. 23, 24 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 305-7.) 

358. 5. sq. See Apul. Asclepius chap. 37 (Hildebrand’s 
edition, vol. 2, p. 326). 


B03 wile > ame acy Er tee ned: tm Eistt. Laue 
mod O8 sie sAte es yop ial nese: cum doleres 


ca 


203 


McmMaptusSTesse venmturum quo illa awtfer- 
meomiturm ex Aercy pto. ; 
See Apul. Asclepius chap. 24. 





364. 13. sq. See Apul. Asclepius chap. 37 (Hilde- 
brand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 327 sq.) 





appro, sheure, CO me. Sacerido te: op rol 
Hemce, aa Olympiadem Mmatrem iserib it 
Pelee xraen der: 

SEC HOLE ). 327.,25. 


204 


BOOK IX. 


368. 14. daemones quoque appellave- 
Ea) Wien) 1.0. tn, deseo. f ayim) § 
see Lact.’ Div. Inst;e. 24.6.) (h’o S: “en im patamss 


delois, Ve S S'e)./) bids. 45-27. 01 2) snalS)h (Qeuaid. didresna 
Shunt? d'avem ome SG wio sv uil:e us: (dee a's’ ‘eisiste 
OP UMatUr 2. ene oO Tdem, “stint, dae mommies 


Gtwos fatten t we ie xe Cura nd.o'S, les, se. winder 
dii quibus supplicant. Compare Plotinus Enn. 
3. 5. 6; Kat ei wodXais Kai daipovas Geovs A€éyomev eva. Lactan- 
tius is evidently Augustine’s authority. 


36815. V qu amg ura m et (dlevols. 7s.e1d)) meas 
bis. Domain €2 dae mon um . 

In Lactantius we find Juppiter, Apollo, Neptune and Vul- 
can, who are elsewhere acknowledged as gods, called demons. 
see: Div. Inst. 1. 729, 4. 27. 12-sq. 


368516. tan at aspishuy my. (ony. eumy, A eeqnukesm 
vO lamit) €S Se ir etgce.m acc. prin, clipe i) erenme mee 
Oorum, ab Hom ero” tat.elant.u tid atemomenr 
nuncupatum. 

So far as I know Zeus is not called da/uwv anywhere in the 
works of Homer as we have them, except perhaps by implica- 
tion in Iliad, 1. 222: 

ddépar’ és aiytoxoro Atos pera. Saiovas dAXovs. 

Augustine probably got this, not directly from Homer, 
but from Lactantius Div. Inst. 4.27.15: credant Ho- 
Memo Gur summum ol lim lowes adeacee 
monibus adgregavit, as we cannot infer from 
Augustine’s language ab Homero fateantur that 
he referred to direct Homeric authority, or even to indirect 
Homeric authority of a Latin version. 


205 


36g, 20, Apudyplerosque Jenim ws ta 
pam ests dtc -alios thonos)alios . malos 
dae 0 ne! S.. 

Seculact Olv.sinst sod Go etar vd uor 9g ene ra 


dive nen Um, wn wim Corewte s tie a lb t’er a, m 
fertend im. Etyssitent | im wadi spirit us 
malorum q wae Ce rin tT Aull ‘biOr bess. 


G@uottm idem diabolus (est \primeceps. 
For good demons see Porphyry De Abst. 2. 38, 39, 41, 53, 
Ad Marcellam 21; for bad demons Id. De Abst. 2. 38 (ad 
fin.) *58. 


s7055. Ex hoc ferme daemonum numero, 
far welt . 

See De deo Socratis chap. 12 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2, P. 139.) 

eee ood Cs bs. Yani mi mOt0-b ws, ganare 
Graeci may Nostritautem quidam, sicwut 
Cuocro, pertburbationes, quidam-aitec- 
tomes vel. <atfec tans, Guuniida ms 9 wie hon 
WwcwEtet ste de. Grace ¢o 6x pPressius, pias 
Sal, O) €4Si \V)0.C.a nt 2 

See note p. 346. 10. By the words sicut iste de 
Graccoe) ~expressius, passiones Augustine 
means that Cicero by a more literal translation agrees with 
others (quidam) in calling the 7d) passiones. 
This, however, is not so. Cicero himself says that for a more 
literal translation he would make ra6y—=m orbi. Compare 
Ista I Ose bose, et id.) veer bum e's set 
e verbo; De Finn. 3. 10. 35, quas Graeci wdby 
aap collcmyt . prolk em a mie co, ver Dum. 1p sa m 
(ee eh pst cut acmes mor pos, -aappellare - sed 
mon conweniinet oad omnia. ,,Moreover the 
word passio does not occur at all in Cicero or in any 
classical writer, but belongs to the latter period of Latin. 


19. Has ere o peotunbationes. sive 
Ape Ct1 O-nvers" ~~ ‘Saav ‘e pass@on és quidam 


206 


philosoph? Cdicunt ef tam’ ins pa emee m 
Caden e; sed moderatas rationiqa#e 
Sis Dave (Get aS 

see Tuse.'3. 4. 7°Sq., 3. 6: 12, -3:9:-19; 4.19, 43," eb pas- 
sim, ('Qwidam; Hoc ‘qui’ senrtiunt Piatone 
fer sunt sive’ Aristoteltex > line ey 


B7 i. Os eA Wiis “ar iuerma, * (Sse uns y Se lOicase 
Ga dene (i liaise” sonny nso hiud-a sce) amioda 
passiomes in “Sa piusem tem. non, placer 


see’ Cic. De Finn. 3.10.35; itaque his sapilems 
SeMm pet vyacabiat, Tusc. 4 17.38: a tan e.mdem 
rita acrem in “omnis “partis aici em ene 
tendit, ut Semper ~videa ts “sie-dvem eisitbe 
ac locum Sine mobhéstia atq we ane ore 


Vivendi, wt, -qguemcumatue “casam: tome 


Luna tnvexerit, hume @pte et equrrenme 
ferat; quod ‘qui taciet pon acernitudiume 
Solum waecabit, “sed ‘etiam, one ar pare 
to na bes “Tiel wis “om not bunse 


375. 11. Cicero in. Ca es ax Us-0l a ude ioe 
© .Git Wis" .-Sutia? 

In the quotation which Augustine proceeds to give from 
pro Q. Ligario 12. 37, he omits the word plurimis. 


377. 0. gos. poetae .q.00 Lund am bomae 
Vel iooy OVS CG Gin Ge et a Mase On .e)S d €-0.5). jnuom 
PaO cn sa yee ri tate. com inleoe nyt: 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 12. (Hildebrand’s edition, vol, 
2, p..139). 


377-24. Deni gpl ¢€. Wim cece + dient. aeome 
ericam illam Minervam quae mediis 
cocectibuws Graium cohitbendo Archaea 
in tery ent t. 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 11, (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 
a, p.'1138), 


207 


276. 31. Leitur honrines, inguit, ratrone 
gaudentes 

This is quoted as Hildebrand says non ita magna 
Sodd. utrittsqte Scriptoris distensione 
from De deo Socratis, 4 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. p. 


122-3.) 


Sotecow Gs) (cum de hglinvamis: an lm Ws 
BeOneoL Eck « Raa tient. Yam Quit, Mrs erreo hs 
momtaita fitis  vinela Taeiebat. 

This reads in the original (Enn. 4. 3.12) Zeds d¢ warnp 
eXenoas rovoupevas OvyTa airav Ta Seopa todv. The reference is 
here given by Dombart. 


382. 15. Driert q@widcem: ef emimas hemi- 
ium daecmonmes esse et ex Keninebes 
fiver 1 bares, si Mee nteiot boni Scum te: 
beam ures’) Si “mali teu -Larvas: maines 
rubem deos diti si interttm est bone: 
rum cos Seti malorum esse MeEeriterfram: 

We should suppose that as no new subject has been men- 
tioned, that of dicit is the same as the subject in the 
preceding chapter, viz. Piotinus. We see, however, from 
the lines following dicit, which are condensed from 
Apuleius, that the latter is the subject. See Apul. De deo 
Socratis, 15 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2, pp. 146-7). 


Bo2275 Und ¢, “autem. pes bibre t’ ap pie l- 
Maris Graecce  Dbeatos eveapovas, quod bon 
Suite el mad Ms 2 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 15 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
Sep te) OmGer non nde cacr bit fant wr. . 6. 
enoatovas ~ G1 Ci. (bea tos | quorum . daemon 
omnis Mads lest. animus: ay hr tute. per fiec - 
ens: ES. t. 


S83. 95 (Eb abiertis,. tnqumey taterim biwa 
aeim alii; sdeios; abe homintbus iplwrais 
imp Gditterentes: loci sm bl iim tbat Gar 


208 


See Apul. De deo Socratis 4. (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. 
Doel): 


389. 25. Deum quidem summum omnium 
Cr ea tor ems -qiiveam:. “myo S Wied ulm » Pyemaaa 
dicimus, sic a Platonme peaedica qitase 
severat, quod apse, sit sols? ‘qua omen 
POSSiIt. (S€2 moms. ha man Sq wa ys 6 wOumag 
tion 6° wee lehumord-) cee" (Cionm: p Ee hve meditate 
aid tem (sia pie n't1 Duws' “Vir LS. Cumuise. Vierore 
amg ua nm tim: ac ust Sa. Ieemr proctie Saimer 


mao Vv er nt, -1.met.¢ ree tim, Sh aiiuss fe" eel 
quoque interdum. velut:, “ina ine ss emis 
Pemge Ot irs rapidis sim o coruse¢am ime 


lamen ‘can ditdum, 1meerm i o¢are- 


See Apul. De deo Socratis 3 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. 
p. 119): Compare Id. De dog. Platonis 1. 5 (Hildebrand’s 
edition Vol. 2, p.:183) Tert. Apols 46; —P lato taal eemmet 
fa Citdnt/ajt Of 65m) UW VW ers tats) ntesqpacesee me 
Wen ne fae lem, <6 “en vern ti mes conan eae 
imo m nies? difficile. Waéty inst Epis ae 
sublimior entm, ac maior “est sqr0 am) ant 
Pp O;S:S1 t\ a Ut) -C.0.e8 bast o n-e4 )eh-o mands eae 


Sier M.0 npelc.0 Mm: p-tre he nda ids 4 Divs Inst. aor 
Cuius -(D€é1) Vim “"Maiestate mae fame 
tam “(esse da ent. sim) tumraceio- «Pla to,-simt 


Gams ae -qeihe.) Mmnemtie COncipere Me aiuice 
VWerDi1s enatrate “quis qu aim  (p.o.s:siet aroun 
fimiam é€t inaestimabilem potestatem, 
Compare also Cicero N..D.: 1; 12, 30°; Alea de). Plata 
his inconstantia longum) €st, daceme 
quist1n ~Taimaeo patrem-) hua s, awe 
nominari meget posse, ime ties wim 
Rem; Blab mivs quid Spink omnino arecurs 
anqutrioportere non censeat. Minucins 
Felix, Octav. 19. 


209 


ago. 12) Si Ten cContaminan tur Sider a, 
CUM videntur, quos deos omnes Vvisi- 
Moles die rt, : 

Apul. De deo Socratis 2 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 
ijt eoden vrsibthtiwm "de orum n um 
ero cetera quoque sidera quio>cum Pla 
Brow e. iSeries oc ait Ox (7) 


Sosa ante sec teeth bud) Plto iti -wbt ait: 
Picci m eSt teitur ad .carissim am 
Peteetsitd Wie Cbs 1 Dol pa.t @r- -eG.t° 1b - Oo: min ia,. 
Cie. Wettwrh. imaquit, ~lassis aut fuga? 

The original reads (Enn. 1. 6. 8), devywpev dy Pidnv és 
WaTptoa .... . tis ovv 6 aotdAos Kai » pvyy;...+ Tarpis dé Hiv 
OOevrep NAPopev Kai warHp éxet. Tis OV 6 aTOADS Kal y Pvyy; Dom- 


bart gives this reference. 


Ao4s 27. NOS ahem SiCUt sori pti na 
ORRUict fs 2 eis a ee LO So Gut.d 6m op ar t4 m 
Mmowes partim malos, nimaquam Vv €ro 
Bomos daemones le pim us. 

The passages of Scripture bearing on this point are num- 
enolic. see.( Vile.) Gen. 16,7, 24.7, 28, 12> 1 Res. 20.9; 1 Par. 
Siete eS) 9G. 11, 90.7, 102. 45— Mala 33> Mat. 4: 12,-13: 
gg, 10s 27.82, COL a1. 14° © lim: 5. 21, where good angels.are 
spoken of. For the bad angels see Mat. 25. 41; 1 Cor. 6. 3; 
Iud. 6. 


395: 5. Daecmones emim dicuntur (quo- 
Mita iv Oc acpi lim. Graecum est) ab sc¢ien- 
fied TiO mi may ti: 

pee act. Div. dnst, 2, 14.6, "da em ones. autem 
BeaiimMatrct.) GLretoOs, alunmt  Guasi Sanpervas, 
ies t per it.0S) vate Ter wm Sse i0.s, whichis 
also the derivation given in Plato Cratylus 398. B. ore dpdvipor 


\ , > , cee | ee. 
KQl danpoves Hoav dainmovas GUTOUS WVOLACEV, 


05,5) Eos) si PF latomtedw. ma lunt..deos 
Giam dacmones dicere ersque adnum- 


210 


CrEare qQuas 2 summa Dea condi tas .aeos 
S€ri bit £CoOfmmMm @auet ore macs terre lato: 
Cicero did not get this reference (Tim. 41 A) directly 
from Plato, but from Cicero’s Latin version of the Timaeus, 
as we learn from DCD XIII. 16, where Augustine quotes ver- 
batim Cicero’s Latin version of the passage to which he refers 
here; -P la tion i's: shia eres wer Dl aSal Wt Se ater 
Circe TO -iime Wyattien am. yer tt (ps 575. ang) 





211 


BOOK X. 


402, 8 AMarpeoy quippe nostri, ubic um - 
Give Sametaradm Scripturarim positu m 
Sst Sitter p re tat t Sint Servi tute m:. 

See Hatch and{Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint, 
Dutripon’s Concordance to the Vulgate, and Moulton and 


Geden’s Concordance to the Greek New Testament, on Aarpeta 


and servitus. 


402.56.) Sed sea, Serwitus quae die bietar 
Momunibus, Secundum “quam praeéecip7t 
Zoos holas Siler vos! dominits suis su Db da - 
Monse-e s-ste. <e boe res ballbavo: ono mine 'G raleicie 
Dt eeu pata Ss ole t . 

That is dovrea. The distinction between dovdrca and 
Aarpeia is often mentioned by Augustine. Compare Quaest. in 
Bx, @4 dovlen, debetur Deo tamquam Domi- 
nig,» Aarpea, VEO -noOnnisi, Deon tamquwam 
Deo, etal; and between the verbs Aarpevew and dovdevew in 


Quaest. in Lev. 66. 


405.25 SU nde in seripturarum ovens. 
tear stimet! oO Certlor “appareret, “neon 
eoéBaav, quod ex bono cultu, sed GeoceBaav 
amire-dy ex (Died seu lt a) com pos Lt ume rmeis 0 - 
Hide sie ere. ma lure f wnt. 

See under these words Moulton and Geden’s Concordance 
to the Greek Testament, and Hatch and Redpath’s Concord- 
ance to the Septuagint. 


404. 18% Saepe mw dot uli) ue Pho ti nrucs 
apsusveia it. S.e@ivs mimes 9 Pllaitetnnrs ex pil ana nays), 
tent llam Guid em, -<quam credunt esse 
EODLVELSitatiss antmam, aliunde beatam 
esse, quam moOstram, td@qgme esse lumen 


212 


quod 1p.s a7 mom), Yes t),- “s'e-d) <anvqrine  sci2 ce ant 
est et 42 quo intel le gi bili ter. son ame 
Wante inteliecabiditer Jucet. 2 ate mua 
stmailitudinem, acd “ila” talc orp oire apare 
hits. .¢ a. é€-be's tisb.w-s .¢C-om Sap Le 1 5, casmepaliics quae 
COnporibus, tam saaam ile: sets so lees 
ip Sau Sit. tu man Pum am “qi ip piey. storliigs 
ODI tn Lamia Ti pu tanto. Da careve tape 
illé magnus Platonicws animam ratitoma- 
Kem, “ives potius vn te lie cttual es .dicenea 
Sit, -& Guo. emer e, etiam . 4mumiom tan eae 
beat Orim gq wer va niimea,sS —"e)s Se. “iaapt sen | exoaimer 
quos in caelestibius sedi bins ha bit areanom 
dubitat., m-om) -hearb.erie 2s 0p ciay s.e. snjartaaent 
nisi Diet qui thabmiicatus) ¢€s & sm um asim. 
anid uilio; ierty Misia “atctra We sb. 


Compare Plotinus Enn. 2. 9. 2, péver te drpaypovws airy, ovK 
é« diavotas dioccovoa, ovd€ te dvopHovpéry, GAAG TH eis TO Tpd aitns Béa 
Kataxogpovga dSuvdwe Gavpacty: docov yap mpos aity eoTr, TéTw 
kadXwv kai duvatwrépa, KaKelGev exovoa, didwor Te pet’ ait, Kal oTeEp 
€AAdumovoa dei €AXAdprerar; also ibid. 2. 9. 3, 3. 9. I, 4. 3- II, 
Hv d€ vos exeivos 6 exel HALOS * ovTOS yap Hiv yryvécOw Tapddeypa TOD 
Aoyou: epeEns de ToVTW Wyn €EnpTynMEeVy, MEvoVTOS VoOd, mévovca. Sidwor 
d€ air?) Ta Tépata aitis TA pos TodToV TOY HALOV, TOUTHW TO Aw, and 
ibid. 5.6. 4. ‘These references have not been given by Dom- 
bart. 


406.16. religentes : ‘ndie.- €t “med ane 
dsc ta ip en ii beevt r., 


Augustine follows Cicero. See N. D. 2. 28) 723, q mi 
autem omnia quae ad ictltmm (dco nimm 
Pertime rent . diligent em) we tearet-aseiemes 
et tanmvquam relegeren it *sapn tt dite tame 
ligiost ex religende.- Compare Mact. Miveine: 
4; 28.03, cover Vin cul Oo npive ta Bs” & Gibrst mr denen 
deo “eter eno a tt soimas: >: “nar de vipa ce 
ligio. momen acic e pit, 2.0 Wt Ci cet oie 


213 


Hegagemet a tus. esty a emelige n dio, ibidh6, 10; 2 
Inst. Epit. 64. 5. 


’ 


ALG T4-p2S-4 C Lice num, Te Sad ivi tc ecs t.: ita 
Mi Osc, Quiet e, vO cabulo, td latini vet. 
eie1s, ap pre | lawyer w nt... 

Secueic Oc Dive 29 10.25. Sii, ernie: mah i 1. if 1t 
Crotiina wide my, mihal Lexan, .re  divima 
PrOwee Ss ten) Nar 218. 47...10 both of, which cases, «r’e-s 
divina evidently stands for sacrificium. See Plautus 
Epid.s. 5734415), Facturum dixit rem esse di- 
Vinem — ¢ On and Amp. 3.3.3 (968).°qud_1e. dis 
Wold ota Gham ¢c Um) p ran dijeat: (“Ference. Eun, 


Base 7 4513), blecyha-1. 2. 109 (184). 


ats. 13.'* alios dravmi mn. arbse bers:, GW OnSe- TELE 
image ite os Vuleus ap pie llat:. 

These words seem to be from Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 16. 4: 
Peat Cues wente, malhericos. vuloeus sa p- 
peed lat. 


ATSHt6.0) INvaimyfet) Ato nr pihsy ears -qiu’a in diatin 
Gist Si (pur SC aomem- anim ae per’ t heuer = 


Retdiie wes 2 dies p tia ta Om-e! pro-m1.t t Pi: newer 
Sh On 6m, giv ero +a d Dremu m hance ar ee mi 
Peqosessiciart.c? SOG uam- ers at 9 6h 3. Nunc 


chim than Co Jartem -tamquam fal la cjem 
Creer ni ieprsiayave:t 1 on eh pericuwlosiam et legis 
Dat Spe O hitb tam: (cave nid-aim. mionmet: nu nec 
AUpere iM) ete lem <dulent! es sé. m wn danae 
atta ieiaane fe Se Eealinre Wemim  dicit 
Beceis Gourds d-aim Com sercir ait Gomes ‘the wrgiicas 
Gea Ser t Eck e:tears V0 Ga nit Pevora EF am’ fiers 
Ped Coedepat dam Ss usceoptionmli ys prrituum ‘et 
aepocuboun dm) eta aids widen dos ' deo s.: Hix 
mit DiS tamen theureicis teletis -fate- 
Binetmrteld cct mali anim ae nihil purge a- 
enon. accede@e, quod. eam faciat idon- 


214 


eam ad videndum Deum suum) eb rpesr- 
Spilciemd-a seca “quae? svete)” OSs nat eae. 

Deni que aniwm-am: 1a ti om ale save: ee 
imtellectualem in Sua posse dieit ewer 
dere. etiam si: quod! 761 us. S pir wtiadke: es € 
nulla the ured e¢ a hue? t) atte Sper ova Ea 
porroe antem ia theureo s piratalem yp wc 


ear? Hactenws, Gt non ex “hoc aa) tare 
morta Prtat eur sae term ita te mi q-ule “pieimivge 2 
nrat: “Ovuramquiam Si taiqu.e -dis ce rmiataga 


daemonibus “an geelos; aeria (Moca (esse 
diaem on tim), aietive ria’ wel emypiy eta dias 
Serens anoe bor un, vet .a dim omeat jwce ae 
dum alicuiris idaeém emis | ‘amici tha eae 
Subvectante vel. paula) ume a item 2 epors 
sit elevari quisquwe post mortem, salam 
Vero vieam sesse perhibeat. ad- anal 
OrUumM. superna CoOomsortiia >: “c.avejndiagn 
tamiem. daemon um) Siecietatem sex pn essa 
q ao damm*=- <mrord.o  <c:ontiesisionie. | ers tata, 
ubicdicit animam post mortem lbujendo 
poenas -cultum daemonum 2a + quibus 
cikcumvemiebatur horrescere< (i pisia- 
que- theurgian quam  welut co mertia- 
tricem angelorum deortumque €om men- 
dat. apd tia hes: .acvere. potes fakes same 
vare-pon potuit: quae vel ipsae 1avid- 
Gant purgationd “Animae, ) rel agrees 
Sef Yviant invidorum, gquerelam, de barc 
me -Ciha lidtaei DeeSse1o:, Cull lS <exipmo me mae 
“Com@ geri tur,’ in qatt, / "vine in (Cheadle 
daea bonus, purgandaée animae magno 
in molimine frustratos Sih. leisisie sme 
cessus, Cum vir ad eadem potens tac- 
tus’ invidia adiuratas (saecris Iprecibas 
potenttias alligasset nye postulata 
concederenat. Ergo @t higavit tlhe, vine 





215 


oie oe ts te mom SO l-yi't.”) Quo) inid ned¢ 
deaxith aspipea teres | FIle E Ss taa eyS:sig | farm 
bom contrel end .q@uwam mali et apuwd 
Geog set -apud. homines i drsciplinam + 
Bat etiam dies et ad rilas pert urba-= 
PIOMmesS DacSLomes que deduct quas) ¢o m= 
Mint eer, da em,.onibu-s ere homin i bus 
Memiveet as: wadtriburt: ~deos “tamen ab 
Cusseta hi ae Se das “altitwmdinie —s'e pairs 
meomet se Latonmins, assere ns aa" thla ‘idas- 
Grenson ese n.t e 0 t 1a, mi. 

A 5s erp hy ri ws per nese i1:0 quam 
hve Mined eat e Gas C4 plana -.€tiam de o-s 
Qustrice tos, passionibws . et perturba - 
Giomib ys die it. 

We are led by the nature of the subject of these extracts, 
which is chiefly the purification of the soul, to assign them to 
Porphyry’s lost work zepi dvddov wuxns (De Regressu Animae). 


AIG. 26.) Dat etiam Cie ous, Je teiiad inltleass 
Memturbatianes passionesque ded ci 
Giuias Communiter daemoni bus et, homi- 
mie ws) A p ude ius <a-dt 1 b.u 1 t 

Compare Apul. De Deo Socratis 12-13 (Hildebrand’s 
edition VOle,25.p; 140. Sq): Quaproepter debet 


deemiss 0 Uibaem ~pleripeti viel opis wae! 
asmrorr is Lem poe allem pie ri um ct 1-0: nerm; 
Geiucdicisk ©C1Os le Cot 1°90 1-on at One) Mec, -m 1S er 1= 
SOLratd CC Omtin ci, mullo. Jango re. . co n= 
teagan Sotelo tl a weal a Crt athe. Loe sti tie, .s ed 
ab Om nb us passionibus kas bre) ee 


moere <un quam “nec -aliquando laetari, 
mec alarqu id he pre Nitin mm we Like ve 


melt [e:: Sed Ci ensale CG weCaun Cita et “id 
menus cetera dacmonum mediocritats 
congruant. Si Mite MMU. tet —n.O-Sq  te.t 


eos wt loge Trecionms ita, ing enie 


216 


mentis intéersiti; Rabentes “eum supers 
cOmMmMuUnemM 1mmiortalitatem,* cam infers 
pasistone mi Nam “ptoin die ut nos) pats 
possunt omnia’ animorum” placa men ta 
vel “ncirtament a, et “trea ine wt am tae 
e¢) Saisie riicorr dial: fleet aim tua © fece er deo nees 
invitamtur et “precibus Lenian tae "et 
contwmel 11s ex sSperantur- et = hom oan 
bas moa hCe nae al iistq mer omen mbes seared 


Stmalém nobis modum Variantwr: 
Gaulnep pie. set Pn fine comprehendam, 
daemones> sunt” g@enere” anim alia eam 
Ge wi'o | “ta t1.0 alba ta, 4aym itm Oo) so pcs Sui ae 
COW pO Tia) \aveor tay even pom ey ae te aera ee 


his ‘Quin @uae quae “Co mmieunion avi venes 
a 4p ri mei pa o--vea de m qiusa e- “In of birsc ume 
Guartum proprium,” postrem um eco m- 
Mun é- cum: “-d1i's. am m-or tial aba ssh ape mt. 
sed datterunt. abichits, passiome: Ohara 
propteréea  ~pasisiva’ “non “abs uiridier.) sae 
ar brteroT, Mominmavy 1, ‘quve d “Sine -ri ode 
quibus nosy perturbation bus am-emitaes 
obnoxii. The first words of this quotation of Apuleius 
are the direct opposite of the words pati etiam deos 
which latter, however, are not the words of Apuleius but of 
Porphyry. Compare the words beginning chap. 10, Ecce 
nunc alirus Platontceus ‘quwem docttorem 
ferunt,: Por phyrius, per “nesci1o- quam 
thewretcam disciplinam €tiam, pisos 
ODstrictos passionibus “t Spertuce a 
tionibus dicit. Compare the words of Porphyry 
(Epistula ad Anebontem 5. Partheny’s edition p. XXXI) dote 
ovx ot daipoves pdvov eiciv éumrabels, GAA Kal of Geol KaTa TOV “Opnpov « 
otpemtolt d€ te Kat Oeoi airoi. Here Porphyry disagrees with his 
teacher Plotinus (Enn. 3. 5. 6.) in regard to the dwdOea of the 
gods 70 pev b1 Oedv arabes éyomev, Kal vouilonev yévos; Satpoor d8 


mpootiGepnev 7aOy. 





217 


ALS ree New ws) Sia put iste Porp hy r- 
ius cum ad Awe p Ot te,m So-r i p's: t 
Aue Suy sper Fuse GO ne Sol hen ti -sitmi bis) cet 
PeROmit - achive) asia car Lé, oa. se:t le ver tit. 

By these words Augustine seems to be passing to another 
work of Porphyry from which he had not been quoting prev- 
iously. The letter of Porphyry to Anebo, the Egytian, has 
not been preserved entire, but only in fragmentary form. All 
the extant fragments of it have been put together by Thomas 
Gale in his edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis (London 1670), 
and by Partheny in his edition of the same (Berlin 1875). It 
was printed before these only in the Poemander at Venice in 


1483. 


AcGe 205) ft ye ql dem: oO mine Si p).d aes 
moe Site pT opat, 9 duos); dteit » ob. Fine 
Prod nti am: trah ere yh amid um) va porem 
Seen die’ O: mnsonn! Jhon Yaveithyelre: seid * P-n a ene 
ersecren esitb. Lamina: salt quver “i ae (Mp s7o™ . Liharaie 
Salar O:).6 >... @iukors) d.alai) sa. muquure, 1b € nig nsors 
fee i oO. n-e S| gmroter a pyp elslaits a ki-oir wim, copm 
omnes g~eneraliter inprudéentes fatea- 
a Ne ae 

Augustine has preserved for us this information in regard 
to Porphyry’s opinions of demons as expressed in the letter 
above named. But the original is lost. 


AiGo7 Minatur quod noe -solum *d11 
Timon aviGCkLimg 1s Sed  €f1am. ¢ Om- 
RoOMamius atque Cogantiwr facere quod 
ean 5. vio-l wu nt: 

See Ep. ad Anebontem 28 (Partheny’s edition p. XX XVIII.) 
mavu 5€ pe Opdtre. was ws Kpeitrovs TapakaAovpevon EriTATTOVTAL ws 
xelpous, Kat Sikaov elvar aéiodvres tov Oepdrovra, Ta GOiKa avrot 
kedevobévres Spav bropévovat, kai Kabapeo pev py ovr. e€ appodiciwv ovdK 
dv xadotvre traxovoaev, aitot Sé dyew cis tapavopa appodiora Tovs 
Tuxovras ok éxvotow, This fragment of Porphyry is preserved 
by Eusebius, Praep. Evang., book 5, chap. 7, (191 D) and 


218 


bid. chap. 10 (197. D). But Augustine’s knowledge of Por-- 
phyry’s letter was not derived indirectly through Eusebius, for 
two reasons: (1) Augustine shows a larger acquaintance with 
the letter to Anebo than could possibly be gained from the 
disconnected fragments given by Eusebius. (2) Augustine 
seems to have had the actual book of Eusebius (in a Latin 
version) before him, so that he knew exactly from what part 
of the epistle he was quoting. Compare DCD X. 11 (p. 419. 33 
Sieg ant (iG ts vex, ero emneente m0 iat)! 32> i(p; pete) 
Dua p Go laid! Ve:pirsye wilta eo fare, Such words of 
location he could not use if he had known only the fragments 
given by Eusebius. 


419. 6. Quderac etiam -v-eulourt 1) -dwbitaeis 
Hthwm § tno d iva nt Pb urs et qa. ecd a m 
mira © facie ti bars! ja npimae Ssimt. “prase 
Sip nes “an taliqul "siprratasy eat. im se cis 
venrant perc ‘qwe's © haéc “vated nite 
po tins “Ve nit eo ext T Hn ms ce cuc comm enut sume 
quod lapidi bus “et Nerbas) adh bate iseece 
all i.e net) “qowo 6 Ganme) let ) apie 7 amet Sena mass 
ostta, weily aliiqund vers» mods mira- 
Diet t eur eo pre, eonet tebe 

For this fragment of the letter to Anebo compare para- 
graph 24, (Partheny’s edition, p. XXXVI) preserved in lam- 
blichus, De Mysteriis 3. 27, from which it is given by Partheny 
thus: rovrov 6é de’ypata ard TOV épywy evapyn TO AGous Kat Botavas 
hepe Tors Kadovpevous, decpeiv Te tepor's Tivas Seopovs Kat Ave TOVTOUS 
Td Te KexAeopeva avotyew Kal Tas Tpoaipéces peraBalrew Tov 


brodexopevwv WoTe ex pavlwv oravdaias arepyaler bat, 


Ag. 212: Unde dic ut! +a livojs,colp invert sersesie 
quod dam en WS, <CWi. ex aw dae. ssl. ono 
pri usm, natura Fraydlidwa, X.., 0. a1 fo" mee 
mu ltitmord um.,. sdmitliaos edse oS.) 6 Gcam ee 
m6 mes let anim as. def une toro, .crewoe 
esse quod c:efficiat haeéc. omnia *quae 
videntur bona esse vel prava; ceterum 


219 


Guincan iar eqiuae, veere) bana sunt, nihil 
Spt lianiia-amim ove ro: ista’ nec) nos s'e% 
Send Vets ales comet iiate. ie t ansswmru)l a re 
Pegiuee inpedire nonnumquam wirt atis 
Sed shes sS.elert a trorne.si,) ¢ & yp liemium-. es sé 
Bemenitatis et fastus, @audere nidors 
MORES aman wileted tal Orne Dis Ca pitt “eqto -c.e't er ai, 
Compare Partheny’s edition 26 (p. XXXVII): oi d€ eiva 
‘\ » 4, Ne: /, , > ~ , , , 
pev eLwhev tiHevtar TO iryKoov yévos aratynAys Piaews wavTowopHov TE 
kal moAvTporov, tmroKpiwwopevov Kal Oeovs Kat daipovas Kai woxas 
teAvykoTwv, Kai dua ToiTwy mavta dvvacba tov SoKxovvTwv ayabdv 7H 
~ s SiaaN > , »” > \ a s \ x \ 
Kak@v €ival, éme eis TA ye OvTWS Gyaba, Grep elvac KaTa WuxyV, pydev 
kaarag ovpBadrdrecbar dvvacGa, pnde eidevar taita, aA KaKkooxo- 
NevecOar Kat Twhalew Kai eumodilew moAdaKis Tots eis apeTHV 


> , , > , \ , > a \ , 
aptkvOvpEVoLs, mAnpes TE €LVAL TUpPoOV KQl XalLpelv QT {LOLS KQLt Ouciais. 


AI0. 95. (Oar ett -e nim 7-culG, 4t a m.qou am 
Mew OCA DS 1nkvOca tis “quasi “pret ori bts 
tmp etret ir. ut indwsita pimaec.e pta hom- 
minse € Xx. Se Grura net Utes. | ICU a det fe-C ta tuum 
Mem ene ria Non, ex audian t-.-1.n pt.ec an 
Bee clm pis Had in ces tos ~ q uo gtare 
Somemprtus quoslibet ducere mon mor- 
CHhir Clr animamntibus, sues an-tis- 
Eioesmoponrtere abs tinerie denun tre nt, 
Memvia p Ord milis “profecto “Cor poreis pol 
citmeir pst wero ete alas v.ap.o ri bus 
Met eramiewer (et Midori bus, “hostiaru m , 
Cumamesa cadaveris contactu prohibe 
Mtn “11 saprerc. tot. ple cr umiqu.e wl lia cada vy - 
CiapeuiSace.e Ine ub ie met bts: 

See the passage quoted p. 418. 27. 


A208 15. Divcaitretd.d wa ocripsisse Chaexe= 
monem guendan 2. 4. €a qwac apud 
menwyptios Sunt celebrata rum ori b uls 
meted “lsade vel ederOsiride mart 
Filius! maxima vim babere cogandi 


220 


deos! ati faci ant im perata, (qian e@ogmras 
G0 OC a Tim 1a WSF Co wt seme Se, parwordseme 
Vel cewer tere: Com mam ait > Dies eee haa 
OsiTfidis membra Missi patenrum tere 
boi ithe di Cat sie fairer e: fais isa, me oaleerr 
Ec init: | 


The passage of the Epistula ad Anebontem to which Au- 
gustine here refers is preserved by Eusebius Praep. Evang. 5. 
to (198 A), and by Iamblichus De Mysteriis 6.5. Partheny, 
in his edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis, p. XX XIX, par. 3:, 
gives it thus: 10 yap Aéyew ore Tov oipavov tpocapaée Kal TA KpuTTa 
THs “Ioidos expaved Kai TO év ‘ABida amroppyrov bei Kai tHv Bap 


oTHTE Kal TA peAn TOD ‘Oaipidos diacKedacer TO TuPore. 


421: 16. prope ade pistuhaecthin cmaipeore 
Se-a Db € 0 doce rtiequca.€ sit a-d= bre are emedee 
nem wWia “ex Ave oy pet ia. lS anpiate made CO ceate 
erum iillos quiv@s., Conv eS 4010 cue 
diis ad hoe <esset ut of 1n-v-emivermd aaa 
fugitivum vel pradcdium Com para nen, 
aut propter nuptias vel .mienr ca Guam 
vel quid huwiws modi mente media moem 
inguiettarent; £ cust a 60.5, -v itl.e. munedueesier 
colapeste-rsaip Ce mts: 1a se ia pases 
HUM Da, cum “qui bws “Com we fsa ciemataen, 
Est. de ce teris re Duis Ve ra pita edipetc ws 
ent, . tamen quomiam ‘die “be actictm donee 
Piha l Cattwm ec. Satis 1d on 6.130 sew 
erent ..m ec, d-€6-S. 11 os, esis © mec. pre mune aes 
d'a,em-onme’s,.-sed awt 1)iwm: :q.0a2 diediare 
fallaxaut humanum o;mie <c om me nitude 


. . yn > ) 
Partheny, p. 46 sq., gives this as follows: @€A@ otv zap 

3 A“ \ > > , c ‘\ 3 4, \ cs / ba) c 2 A 

tpav THY €is evdatpoviay Oddv éemidekal rot, Kat ev Tive KEtTAL 4 adTHS 
> 4 / > a c 4 2¢/ ‘ / € / Bo 

ovala . . . . patyy abtois 7) copia eEnoxynta epi dpareérov ebpévews 7) 

Xwplov avns 7 yapov ei TUXOL 7) euTopias TOV Detov votv évoxAnvacw: «él 
) > = / € / ‘ \ a »” > , , 

d? ob mapetrat peév, ot ovvovTes Tepl pev TOV GAdwv TaAANOEecTaTa Léyoust, 


mepi d€ evdatpovias ovdey aapades ovd’ exéyyvov Exovor, xaewa pev 





221 


dvapederavres aypyota dé trois avOpwrois, od Hoav apa ouvre Geoi ov7’ 

> \ / > > xv 2 a ¢ 4 , BD} A > , 

ayaGoi daimoves, add’ 7 exetvos 6 AEeyouevos TAaVOS 7 TaV avOparwv 

evpnpa Kai Ovntns Picews avaTacpa, f 
4235-24.) quem cad modum so Lycurgo 

iva Get ae Oni. quod a Love seu Apol- 

inne. wiecrcleis. dla s € Omd idit, awe ce piss et. 
SEeEMOLE p72. 3. 


A245 12. “Oomin wa Galas papre Gitkase D hae 
Samer h Omminisbanis wel aneed 1 wel heoumines 
PLoisS Uno. im 4 Unis Seis.sie Omnipoten tis 
Mone esttia ee Gus quis ditfite tur, ims.anit. 

Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo 
p. 61) cites the words of Plotinus (Enn. 3. 2. 1) as containing 
a similar view: 10 pev To abroparw Kal TUxy diddvat TOLdE TOD TaVTOS 
THY ovelav Kal ovaTaciw ws aNoyov Kal a.vOpos OUTE vovv OUTE alcOnow 
Kextnevov, dyAdv ov Kal mpd Adyou Kat ToAAOL ikavol KaraBEéBAnvrar 


/ “A t) 
derkvivTes TOUTO Aoyou. 


A245 10.) Diep novi dies) tina, seer tie. Pl otis 
gig Onn c US) (dis pultat eam q wee “a> Ss Uamomo 
Rene (Civil Sa weusst.. «tun te ble se a bet livs || sat qeave 
tence 1, f ay Det) is Dew lse her iee duos is! qauye ad 
ieee tenia. 6 tiled peti n g ere) tlio sc 
SOr mea tque d-olive rum pu leh rit wdy ne 
Com p Fo bats Guaé Omnia qiasi abiecta 
et WeLechtoSime  pereun tia dec emtirs- 
simos fOr ma rum suarum Wem) ey OFS 
Hea ete lho Me apo. SS e. CO Nit m at msi inde 
POMC tin, wb forma intellegibilis 
et in commu tabilis: simu) ha bens omnia 
PIeh S.Cnv 6 Gait, 

See Plotinus Enn. 3. 2. 13 (given by Dombart), 

There are other references, not given by Dombart. Thus 
in Enn. 2. g. 16 Plotinus speaks of the working of divine 
Providence of the world. Compare also Enn. 3. 3, 5. 1. 

Compare the’ passage in Cic) N, Do2. 45. 126:'sq., 2. 47. 
moe age Ut | wc aelest1m as | reb as ~ ad 


222 


fer Lest ejs- ¥ mia i ass). + Gast dal wes, t) isn aaeies 
in -@wo. non nia tur ae) ratio. te lieeemirts 
Aap Dialr © alten Prince i peo eo, Fumi quae 
cignuuntwe “e terra; sit ir pies) © tr stave 
ta tem “dia nt lis, -quvace: “Ss wisi nje mht) eaten 
terra su.cuwm “tira-hyim/t.3 sq uso. allan Cees 
quae radicibws CoOmtinent we, [oO bd cmn- 
firg ue libitio “a ttc: O ft ic et th nie oenES 
Sintra frigmorib ws €¢ yoalo-r vbD Ws tu tomes. 
Sie? a2 Si, Bape WU staie Ope rp veke etnsm Tan Ulennees 
@Ss'et,- or mats “mate nsa, ~a d h iibwita. “seutemes 
est a providentia - deéoru m2 at Ssce mapper 
essent ‘ot DesStrarim  “Senera et at bog: 
iim Om 1 iam qruve” “1 en em, ~~ qrulale® aes tee meres 
Sit 7p ob Ws) sc Onien ion Cunreumeretane Qua 6 - quia 
dem” om nia’ eam, vil “s'em1nais ~ -braepve at 
in? 2S'es at Je x 0 pil tr ‘a eee ae esn tee ee 


420.13. 1 1) a vam q tse. “vel Sto) Dvenest asta 
pulchr itn dacais Avis) Se set (Sai tad ni ta© 
aim Ore die ness ma, out) 4sime hac. squid. 
bus bibvet alits” bonis praced it wan at cue) 
abun dante m “non? -dwb1 tee] Pl ot anus ieee 
felprerisstm.um “dicen es. 

See Plotinus Enn. 1. 6. 7, js 6 pev Tuxav, pakaptos, opw 
pakapiay TeHeapevos: atvxijs 5€ ovTos 6 a) TUxHv. For this visio 
Die1> compare also ibid, 2. .6:,°5, 1.0, (9, also5.) Quam 
ovTw ToL Kal Wyn apatictos aHéatos exeivov wtiabeioa Se exer 0 Lyre 
Kal TotTo TO TéXos TaANnOwov Woxy, ebaparba pwrds éxeivov Kal aito 
aird Jedcacba, otk dAXw hurti, GAN’ aita di od Kai dpa: ibid 5. 5. 7, 
5. 5: 6, 0.7 34 Sq: .6:.9.<7, 6, 6,.8. Donibart fas. otver see 
first of these references. 


427.20; in. wsitati par fs) fadidumea leo 


Compare) Livy, 23:4 315 / HS. bos eculeum 
Pie Petes ).27.104.) Bij) Asus Cra apie ee cae 
ube re, plac st: enti mvastione.2. hae eae 


digia Rostiis, maioribas proc Gra ta edee 





223 


Seto plontinienm €t supplicatio diem 
Roomae adj iommia pulvinaria, et al. Com- 


pare also Jul. Obseq. 1 (55), 5 (60), 14 (73), 15 (74): 2° (79), 
25 (84), 26 (85) et passim. 


4275 20) (ca Glo terraqgue Teru nin s.o 1 - 
iced seICH INE HStth Sete 


Compare Livy 1. \316 -2, cum Siam C1 nem 
oie CttouMeltatiadm: In  terias) ag unt, 
Suepim Cecidere caelo,  lapides 


Mota miis Guoqdue sab “eodeem, prod 1g 1-0 
MoOWwiciamt ale Sacrum, pubilice: suscep tum 


esa: Z7e1Os Ow enenOn - a nono. (Ga eleulm a Edie re 
Mest. Cekhk ae LOC edktt | MO t W SCO nc UWSisia 
Stee a bad) “pred Gd Usiem vil-rO.'S *S.atc §O foam 


mite || Also) eas arscee tO ret. 8.) 25 620 4,, 225 Ts Os SQs, 
BAO, 0; 25/7. S et.al. Compare also Jul..Obseq, 2. (55); 
Hue 70), t2.(710),, 200(79), 21 (So), et passim. 


ADT a2 sre .chan .Cunc Ong ya, ea Vol deC, (ps0 fe S\— 
Pete weot im tte rh «Satis: ey id en t 6.6 ap 
Paeetne te mete hes tue) Orde. Crhitnl, ou ers. de (O-aa An 
Peesn at 1,0m , quas die Pagoda! A-e nears 
Mipetiicnt Se ya dive xit. idee lo cio: in locum 
Meee eidis sey ef er Unt, Uf. ‘ 

Compare Vari Aen: 1.6, 1.1.68; 1.7375, 2. 717, 45 5984, 5- 
632 et passim ; also Servius on Virgil Aen. 1. 378: Varro 
Gielas —pemnates. quae dam. Vvsigal la .ligneéea 
vel Mini oume a wap  Abem eae im. I*tva lia m 
Seine item mn adevrercutrameres J. .oald.ennm © Na rr’o  -l.o's 
deos:. Dardan um ex Sa mtont h ra cia’ in 
Phen yee 1am, de Phrygia AGG Thea 1 in 
et alia im mem! o Tra tp .or tas ss. . 


427627, quod cote m )ilanrquinius nova- 
Geta seve wit.. 

Secslivy 15 36, 4: (atqur hoc? anim o. \agi- 
fav. inguit Mie novaecula,;cotem, dis- 


224 


cissurum’. .. Stumm 11 Leo haw dé ‘oumrcra ne 
fer disc dirsisie Se oO tem Perum t Cic-) De 
Div, T1732) Tarquinias autem se “co at 
tasse cotem novacula posse pre actaue 
AS am, At € 1m) Gencstssivs;s @ soerx ip eli iene. Itza 
CoOtem- in “Comictiam “all latam ios sprercre 
tamte-€t Treéeee “et pop ulo. no war. wil esse 
dise¢rssam.. Compare florus Epit. 1. 1. 5-. act Die 
fast..2:°10;. 1b; )-a Da aueu re Wavpis moonwa Gane 
imncisus est. If Augustine got this not from Vargo 
but from another source, it is impossible to say whether that 
source would be Livy, Cicero or Florus as all three give sub- 
stantially the same account, and Augustine’s notice is too 
brief to give us sufficient evidence to decide 


427.272 quod Epidawr ius sien pen sete. 
caolapio navigant1: RiOmam sciomes sade 
hase aS txt : : 

see! Livy Epit. 11; “miss? We ea tissu.) Ave sewn 
lapi signum Romam ab Epidaure 
transfifercrent, ancwem quit se- tm naweu 
eOrum Ccontulerat, in "quo 1psi m sramiem 
esse “Const a bat, deportavera nt. sweom- 
pare Val. Max. 1. 8. 2, where a more detailed account is 
given. Lact. Div. Unst: 2. 726. 11;> ig7u ordi" se me peer ars 
urbem ‘KRomam” "pestrilentra lrpera ye. 
Ep i dane 0" a/c Cer sit uis:- 


A27..28. Quod Maw em, Gia. S imu Lac au 
Matris Phrygia e vehebatwr, -4te nie 
hbominum boumque cop ati bas ammo pie 
Lem cedditam wna mulvercula 2one. ae 
lisatam- ad suae pudieitiaeg. testi nrom. 
i 0 it “mom t et "Cr arte j 

The name of the mulierculae_ was Claudia 
Quinta, See Livy 29. 14.12, Cie. De Harusp: Resp. 14.27 
Lact. Div. Gast! 2.16. 1x; quod C lawd tac iran 
fea'v-1'S "See Uta eso. 


225 
427. 32. quod virgo Viv 6S0 ay psi; dé 
Guints. COLT up ttone ‘quae s tio. verte Das: 
Pine ecgqewan un plheto (Cribro . dies Prbe ri 
neque perdt lure nyt.e abs twdit Com t fF O= 
Wers 1am. 
The story is found fully related in Val. Max. 8.1. 5 ; 


Peause'e.1 ace Voir onc 1s Vestalis ine .e Sta 
Sorin heae Castitas infamitae nubeé 
Giesieabera tase ier St t., Orage 10 My Sncuve on t ica 


Comiudesincerttatis Sitae Spem salutis 
PacHenMrt it saa tecnUlinee 1 t108 asa pe tere € st: 
imeecsrn Ome Mit “Crd briOse. “Vesta “in qait, 
Tce Ssaee wis EUs 1G aS bas Seem p € <a dam-o'v 1 
montis. eClutee mt hoc Waurtam e Faber 
Mma ne et in ace dem vf wam | pier fem aim 
Midd GlLer et Lemere actis-votis sacer- 
GHers Lertwm’ ipsa Datura cessit. “This 
was probably found in the twentieth book of Livy which is no 
longer extant, but the Epitome of which gives Tuccia 
Maio Vestalis }inmcest? damnata est, 
though, damnata_ here might imply she suffered the 
usual death penalty, which is the opposite of what we learn 
from Augustine and Valerius Maximus. Compare Pliny H.N. 
Coe ee tat lmcehae Veestialis incest 
Cepnecatho, qua Usa aqwam in “cri brro 
pitt sano wrbis, DX VILIL. But. Augustine's 
source here was Varro, as we learn from DCD XXII. 11 (vol. 
Mesp. §86.'82): quod Varre commemo'rat, 
Mestalem Virginem, cum periclitares 
fe dec HSrteuipa oO “ialsas Sais pict one, cer ib 
Rum oemphessc saqua deuTiberi et ad 
Sues cud reeves -niwl ka seins, perstillante 
parte portasse.  Francken, Fragmenta Varronis, p. 
121 sq. has assigned this whole passage, p. 427. 16-34. to 
Varro. 

ues, een (NEO ues eon ms rie: My era,” wt) ofapit 
Rorphyrius é€tgwnonnulli@putant, cada 


226 


Verinis nidora bbws) sie dd. dalwaitis) homeo mi 
bas 7 @ a uidve'n tf: 

The reference is here to one one of the lost works of 
Porphyry, but we have not sufficient data on which to assign 
it to its particular source. (For an opinion the opposite of 
what Augustine here attributes to Porphyry compare Por- 
phyry De Abstinentia 2. 34.) 


435: 6.. Ex ‘qua® coup i io n-e--. P10 typ hover 
Qua mvs. | “nrOn JX 4s wea. “Siem te n bia a esera 
aliorum, 9 dient. bom um, "die wm yell o7e me 
itis Om Vesa re Sine choo done my on es aaeienes 
Piive fist) farhite, ypu acta teu se 

The language here used would lead us on conjecture 
to assign the passage to the zepi dvddov Wvxjs and such a senti- 
ment may have been found in that lost work. But the same 
sentiment is found in a fragment of another work of Porphyry 
epi THS ek Aoyiwy PiAocodias preserved for us by Eusebius Praep. 
Evang. book 4, chap. 23 (174 C): dev «ai wap’ "Atyumrios kai 
mapa Doig. Kal d\ws Tapa Ta Gia codois ipavres ev Tots tepots 
érippyorovtar, Kal laa mposovdilerar mpo THs Opyokeias Tov Dear, 
éfehavvovtwv Tov tepewv TovTovs 1a TOU dotvar TrEdpa 7 aipa Cowv, Kal 
da THs Tod dépos TANyHs, va TovTwv adreAPdvTwv Tapovata Tod Heot 
yevyrat. ‘This seems beyond doubt to be the passage to which 
Augustine refers, and we know that he was acquainted with 
the ék Aoyiwy didocogias of Porphyry, for in DCD XIX, 23 he 
mentions that work and gives large quotations from it. 


436: 19° “Di cit etiam Por pyhiy rt us «diy das 
onaculis: fuitsisie Les pons ui oS eenveu 
purearis dun aie. Ytreliet is vant. qouje: isitecuiosen, ames 
De nique feo dem: di cat .oc-arcamlio: Gem pees 
Sim p ciwn-c i'‘pia’ —p-orS ste) (piu Vere. oe Dee 
enim<Deuwm  Patf.em vet (Dein me Oba iim 
quem +Graece. appellat.  paternwmagie 
tellecttm: vel paternam Mem te mgs 
Spiritu autem Saneto Paute a ties 
NON. ~apenmt © » ca liquid. odie, quamvis 





we 


227 


(ewer a himim dtcat) hora m “miedium, nom 
moet ellie oo. 

Augustine does not make any statement as to the work of 
Porphyry from which he has given this extract. He is prob- 
ably quoting from the wepi dvodov Yux7s (De regressu animae) 
On p. 446. 27 he refers to the same passage, and also on p. 


_ 447. 28, and in the same chapter he says he has quoted much 


from the same work of Porphyry. 


AcGess) oss. neem, ~her t iam, Sic ut, Plo.t1)- 
Dedecue epee (ce tir Ab urs. perd-nc 1p ail.1-bius» .su_b.< 


Sararvie tits disip. uw tat, aia iva ey) a,b asm 
CamiaatimemiS tic elle fe int Galli oi, in on ut ip 
Giine sCle eit heO Fm » Mee Gia ms. s. Pos t.- 


MaOmivict ang itt pypres Poh oiiem 6S) a Tol Mae. Nea tiucr = 
comb pia te Tio im tie leh ect w 1). 
The first book of the 5th Ennead is devoted to a discus- 


sion 7epi TOV TpLOV apxLKOv trooTAcEwY. 


4a7..°20,. mere 9 vedive am ws tea Tyee quod 
ier 6 C11 Syavin colel tant, ea nedeesm esse 
Pemerme tn quit erst Met Sia lins et “ean deeam 
Sapeet Ul © S a nicat tm. Git est cet Pater vet 
Peishieas . 

Compare Augustine De Haeresibus 41 (BE. 8. 32): 


Seasbreoivitarnal wa be tlio Neore tory... dieu mtwr: 
Mime need ts Cilp i lum. enus gu idiam pea = 
Hubei fairs se, Sia biel biwm =. ... Q uomod'o 


Gopeoamelt ants imtellici potest  ¢ um 
HAMeOnt weer Lint) “dice ire Peat rem = plas Sou m , 
emdies thea fAlp ras Ss ia ni <“qruia my )- Sa be] lian 


resp Lieu um; Up. emt wines > se. Viel. q*wior- 
moO Ow piors su nit sin tie lite oqutl1.b et! €or am 
Pract G6 mi> “pias Ss um fiubivsisrewe enero n.d Ce. 7 ex: 


Uae vCactnts Sen demi Ips tom.’ €'s'sie. ect 
Patamemimecet oF lium “Vertes pirect um sha nies. 
tum? Ad Orosium contra Prisc. et Origen. 1. 4. 4, (BE 8. 
Fuse P cis cillianus, Sabegilican um. antns 


228 


qGuum dogma Tes fit wat .) usb ei prise Sh acer 


qui Filius, ‘quit €t Spirit @s ssa neers 
pe raha bie ten Also Contra Sermonem Arianorum 34. 
32, Contra, Maximinim, 5. 137, Ali wan «vero: esse 
Patrem, alium esse. Bi lium,, .qwhoneaae 


non est Pater . iopsce. +a uae sbi us 2 eer 
no bis: contra Sabre linanos, -esst do ome 
commune. Sermo 71. 3.5 (BE. 5. 448). Compare also 
Jerome Comm. in Ep. ad Eph. chap. 4., vv. 5. 6. (BE. vol. 


Fe Cols 1527): Bore Pat em dsl ‘cor ‘Parorprtreis 
Sa Deliruim, qui eon dem Dyeumy’ Pa cream 
at bol toa tur eft Filium, ““conit wanda iqenve 


personas, dum eandem divinita te mean 
Wtrogue “dheprehend: c. Eusebius H. E 7. 6 
speaks of the heresy of Sabellius : ovros daeBots kai BAaopyptav 
ToAAnv EXoVTOS TEpl TOU TavTOKpaTopos GHeod, TaTpds TOD KUpioV UaY 
"Inoot Xpiotod, arurtiay te ToAARV Tept TOV povoyevots TaLdds aiTod Kal 
MpwToTOKOV TAaTYS KTicEws, TOV evar OpwrnoavTos Adyov, avacOyoiav de 
Tov aylov mvevparos, and Epiphanius, Haer. 62. 


A442. 34, Eitan gel.0.S, qiusisp pies aya O Same sesne 
dixit qui -d.éiorsusm aesiese medic mn te7Sosh ome 
inibus) theuwreicis day ina Jom omen iemnme 
a-ldiOns <a tem. (Gui imo ter ris: ea quar. Prayeas 
Sunt» é6t altitudi nem (6% ws] pre ft utidiiea 
te nique. <declarent 4.2) sia) Uunedees jo,pitamme 
ad Mm Onmét 6tiam:.tipsie eP-bate nm Le ws) imi 
tanvd Os €.0:S “po tims (qi am, 1 nv o.c am idiosse 


It is impossible to say with certainty to which work of 
Porphyry this fragment belongs—probably to the zepi dvodov 
Wuxys (De regressu animae), from which he quotes largely. 
Compare DCD X. 9 (p. 416. 9): Quamquam itagque 
discefrhat, a daemontbws ange los. pyhich 
is evidently from the De regressu animae. Wolff (Por- 
phyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. 
Berlin, 1856. p. ¢46) thinks this fragment may belong to the 
Tepi THS ex Aoylwy dirocodias. 


229 


AGA. 31.) NON e nam be desc. epiiaSis est 
(Oh riks.t us) “MQ inem:  vestr at, it) .t mw. ' psye 
Seri DiSe SOracwula Sanctum 1mm ortal- 


Snag ure «COM esis d. Sil nyt. 


It is likely that Augustine’s statement here refers to the 
work of Porphyry, entitled xara Xpiotvavov, Our knowledge 
of this work is so small that we cannot assign Augustine’s 
reference, even if it comes from that work, to its place among 
the fifteen books composing the xara Xpiotiavav. We may 
say, however, that it probably was not found in the first book 
which treated of the contradictions of Scripture, or in the 
third, which contained a _ discussion on the various 
modes of interpreting Scriptures, or in the fourth, which 
comprised the early Mosaic period and Jewish  antiqui- 
ties, or in the twelfth or thirteenth, in which were his criti- 
cisms of the book of Daniel. If the above statement oc- 
curred in the xara Xpcotvavav how did Augustine become in- 
formed of it? Did he read that work in the original? We 
think this isimprobable, and that it is likely Augustine read the 
kata Xpirtiavov in a Latin version. Even this it is not neces- 
sary to suppose, because the attack of Porphyry on Chris- 
tianity became so famous and widely known, and called forth 
so many replies from the Christians, it is very easy to see how 
Augustine may have got hold, from what was popularly known 
of Porphyry’s views, of such an interesting admission as that 
the enemies of Christianity acknowledged Christ to be divine. 
Compare Augustine, De consensu evang. I. 15. 23: Quid 
Muodims tis vani-Christir baudatdres et 
Ghristianmae réeligionis obligut obtrec- 
tHLOT es Ppropterea non audent blas- 
phemare Christum, quia quidam philo- 
SOpht eorum, sicut in labris suis Por- 
abyrTtius Stioulws prodidit, consulerunat 
deos suos quid de Christe respender- 
emt, rlli autem oractlis suis: Christum 
laudare compulsi sunt. May the statement of 


230 


Augustine, on which we are commenting, have been taken 
from Porphyry’s wept trys ék Aoyiwy dilocodia ? 


446..33. Con fii-terus fame m6 ti aim os pie 
talem animam Sines theuwre 16 1s..a.r tapes 
Gt Sime Lpeletis:. ‘qua Bus ft toms tiie eusiereme 


dis: eta Dif asthe MprO Ssesce CxO tii" ea tae 
Voit ects Pur ea rae, Angi Gat Gyo etiam 
dienes quod teletae no n° pois: tare ea em 
elevian-t< aa ihmia mS siriarm “nse seen deems 


imps t £8 1 qida inh s ya ae aul ‘em sw Olea Seal ena 
pO Sit hivus iit eo iim, eum) ip fio, die, Ss siey wader 
anita 5-e ty tiamye.ny Vv Ges as shiave.c Valsad 
m0 1's. if “re pret lisse. ee i el Dye ney ae uno col 
me-t ie m.diamd ici sem ane ha ct em. sees le Sanam 
pret ducmiglias weds i. prs ass. ave tt dijon. ; 

Here again we have a fragment, no doubt from the epi 
avddov Wuyns (De regressu animae) to which we should also add 
line26;below: 4 ¢ nio- Ta mtia m Cer tie Net pm Opie 
eam -m-udtas Vavtaja, upre f. nulla Saat ebestiaas 
purgari. dicis, sed, per ‘som Saecpucon vam 
id Ve St) pat eon am), mle mn tess isMavee a sinateeauc 
Lée¢t am5-¢ Ut. pater niece ie Sit. cio mn Scans aan 
Ginet act. 1's 7 


446. 29.) eH wn > “a ate im Cha staan fferssre 
non credis >°*Con te minis nim: eum =prop- 
ter: Corpws. ex. PemAana sae ce pt time tere 
Pre pier er:0 Cis VO pspet-o.b ra up. 

The connection of these words with the foregoing would 
perhaps suggest that they came from the same work of Por- 
phyry, namely zepi dvddov wuyis (De regressu animae). The 
first part, however, Hl wnc7autem” Chad st ammecce 
non credis, is probably only an inference drawn by 
Augustine from the words of Porphyry. We know from the 
opening words of chap. 29 that Porphyry did treat of tres 
diéos: Praedicas Patriem ‘et? eins Hilvam 
quem vocas pater i um init<é) Nerethomm 





ye ne 


231 


Seoue me nemo, we tno rw my.) m ed tum!) +q)a em 
Pied muU Stren dhe et en Ss prii tum sanctum, 
treo Tee me str oO ap preltl'ais tres? “d eosr 
Here Porphyry may have paused and said such things against 
Christ as Auvustine ipives. “(propter corpus ex 
Remind aac Captum Set propter Crucis 
Opprobrium), but it is more likely that this state- 
ment comes from Augustine’s general knowledge of the sub- 
ject matter of Porphyry’s cara Xprotiavar. 


246, FO. 0) tie tas, -e tia im, hoe verbo ap ér- 
Pits ee Ul wea t Ot Se Sie hut en ta Mi, Sieigu-e ns 
nie wims.e (Gu Dita Ss =n Narc witia sheo ni tne im 
MepfesOn IMLOLdio ade pet ft eC tito nm em  “S.a pie m= 
mine (Per we niehie. Se CU nudum im tel tec t um 
Humes Vive iti bus  oOmene *iqiio'd = id-e.es\t 
Peovidentia Der Tet aratia “post hane 
Valetea dn) pO suse. Cro! taps let 1. 


AAG.-6;; V0.5) “Cle Tr te trai ti ik (tok i Oc dieeales 
imac ime etlecttalil q@ae anima wtitque 
Miueitica Dea, €St ut. Cam consubis tant? aiiem 
fedaeek nae Ik menti quem Der Hirewm 
Ota bem int, herd pos sie di ciati's, 

These seem to be also taken in substance from the epi 
dvodov duxjs (De regressu animae). 


AAG 257 LP Of p hive wu min’ 7 has’ ip sis” Tics 
Deewsers ivuti-bous) am alta s pow ul \4q wo sv! die 
ew ress up can im ae -s.e rip si ti 

In these words Augustine states the source from which he 
has quoted so much above (beginning DCD X. 9). 


AAR 20 bam CL e bt Or pie Ci per é. 6 mae 
Corpus esse fugien dum, wt anim a <p-o's= 
Bet wed ia  petmanere eum Deo. 


These words are mentioned directly in connection with 
the De regressu animae. 


232 


449. 31. Plat one qua pple? a wetone| ami— 
mal esse <dredtis, Gnunid-nm' > set) aw iamead 
beatissimum quod <vwultis es sie se teams 
Sem pi tern am - 

Another fragment, no doubt, of the epi avddov Yuyqs. This 
reference from Plato is Timaeus 30 B (as given by Dombart). 
To this fragment of Porphyry we should add as evidently a 
a continuation: 


450.2. Sole meq tmoque WStum, seb © eterna 
Sides a. = nom, -s ojlcnuem, scien lat bares) versvttrins 
COTpotra esse fatemina Quod yobicteum 
omnes homines, et C10 DNS -palCrente non 
Cu NLCrt asm thr eG acre ne verum etiam 
a2b1OT.e€. Ut peta tas, spre rita: "ha erage susne 
animalia Dea tissa ma p.¢ Phi beet is suis 
Cams his) C0 pOxk 1 DAYS, "Ss 6 Al (pine eatin 


457. 2. SiCUt “a. silane tor Ysienle Sim pin 
Cia, 10)5>. (qi Wi, po Sitiea, 7 Mcesdao ame nus perc. 
CAle SiiLale. pri an erSsecdinty sep ies ciocpatas: 

This Simplicianus is mentioned in the appendix of Genna- 
dius to the De viris illustribus of Jerome, 37: Simpli- 
cianus jm-u lis. eps tu lis) sho mitiasteurs iesser 
Ati suks tin um ad hunc pre's by te © ui. ajo ietrasrme 
ing enim Vet: 6X pio Satomi se Sich io pat, eats 
Va Care, Wt ect iam) nso wis = Gaui dea- mean 
brosius QOFTrigemis epyodioxtys »VideretuTr. 
Compare, Augustine, Conf. 8/1. 1; 8.22. 3; Retract 22 a2ans 
Stun pili cian ums eq cliesa ace,  erd, io) lea. me misma 
an tistitem -qui, beat iss dim.o. Succeiciecus aut 
Ambrosio. Augustine addressed also two books De 
diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. Simplicianus was ac- 
quainted with Ambrose, by whom he was regarded with deep 
respect. We have four letters which Ambrose addressed to 
him: Epp: 37. 98: 62. 67. 


451. 16. Nam Platomem animas —hotni- 
Mum —post “Mortem revo lv.ie i svqpures. ae 


c 233 


Cormorra bestia ami mm  Seripsfsise cer tis 
Sim. mM: “6 St: 

Compare Plato, Phaedo 81 E, Phaedrus 246 B, 249. B, 
Laws 903 D, 904 E, Timaeus 41 E-42 D. But Augustine did 
not get this from Platg, but from the Latin version of Ploti- 
nus, Compare Enn. 3. 4. 2: 


ARpIeetO,. we O.r phy rio “tamen, «ture. dis 
Pascoe (ie ace sa timas hominum ~ post 
MEG tae im | fe vo lV 1 (El SAG] wie ad corpora 


Dees tt ar aim’) 


AGI 32 ee Witenes a let Enis tm) «5,0 lo sy uh Om dnke «s 


him an.as, “asim as Oi a eel p lt atl posse 
Sean tati ti, bel U1 mos autem Char sGveri 16'S 
eavpet teane minime di bi ita. r ext. DAC it 


Smeaim ard. hoc.) Deum amim am im wnrdo 
ees S'S.e. uct “Mat er tae. Coe nO. c.e ns. smaarlia 
pets Pia tire We, Ne. Uren er .e.0 nec —a li quuagnud.o 
iam otal t wap Onlin ta: Jeo ta. o_O n.e™ teyne me 
5 ul iG 


45o-(8— que di) muunidva ta mea bo om’ nriibats 
malts fan iem ann ’et “Cum “Piatrie-? ¢ ons tn tu- 
Sane) nim gin an sivaom? ana ba mound 1) hyainurs 
frais Sram eS. Soe "CO Nf es seis e.s't 4 


Ano. tov idit hoc Porph yri ts, put gai - 
Puamepiee lam imam “Ob  htoc, fever ti ditxit 
ti eatrem me aliquando tam nvalorum 
Pra litea COM tastomnie  tenjeat ut. 


Ajoeseeu ml autem ditcit, P orp h y fied s 
i piwelmon Luxta fimem de regres su 
animae itbirso- | no m-d- am Lecep tum tn 
ina: Fqan an diam Gsectam, quod univ er sia;- 
bem comtineat viam- anitmae liberandae 
mel a philosophia-verissima aliqwa 
weleab ss indorum moripus ac  disc¢ip- 
leienea a Uet im ductione Cha |. da-eor am 


234 © 


aut alia. qualib est “weirs, | noo mldru meine ine 
suam notitiam eandem™- viam historia la 
Co git Lone. per lat am; 

These all seem to be taken-in substance from Porphyry’s 
rept dvddov woxns. The last fragment, on Augustine’s own 
statement, is taken from the first book of Porphyry’s work. 


ASY. 48; Hamme ‘sie nt net 1am! Po 2 pie 
C0 .Gob: Ontt: ae Ante Mene te Le Ot vaniniSe. . 

Compare (with Dombart) Plotinus Enn, 3. 4. 2. kairo wuxyy 
mraco érysedeirar tod dWxov, él ravTyns paliota: ai 8’ dAAa ddNws. 
mavra O€ ovlpavov TepuToAet aAoTE ev GAXois EldeoLY, 7) ev GLTONTLKG ELdeL, 
Hv NoyiKad 7 ev aita Te gpuTiKe.... "Ooo pev ovv tov avOpwrov 
ernpynoav, Tad avOpwro: door be aicOyoe povov eCnoav, da. adN’ e/ 
pev aicOnoe peta Ovuod, Ta dypia Kal 7 diapopa } ev TovToLs TO didopov 
TOV TOLOVTWY ToLEL, ToL O€ pet’ ETLOUULaS Kai THS NOOVHS TOU emLvpovvToS, 
Ta akoAaocTa TOV Lowy Kal yaotpimapya: € d€ pwyde aicOyoe peta ToUTWV, 
GANA vobeia aicOicews per’ aitov, Kat putd. jdvov yap TodTo 
padiota evypyer TO puTiKov, Kal Hv avrois per€ry devdpwOnvar. Tods dé 
firopovaous pev, KaGapiovs b& Ta adAa cis TA WdiKa, Tors be adoyws 
Baoiréas, derovs, ei py) GAAN KaKia Tapeln. peTewpordyous be avev 
hpovycews, «is TOV ovpavoy del aipopevous, eis Opvets peTewpous Tals 
mrycecw: 6 d€ THY ToALTLKiVY apeTHV, avOpwros: 6 b€ Arrov apeTHs 
mohitikys petéexov, ToditiKov Coov, 7) péeAutTa 7) 7a ToLadTa. Bouillet in 
a foot note on the above cited passage of Augustine says, 
‘*Plotin n’ affirme pas que les dmes humaines passent dans le 
corps des bétes” (Les Ennéades de Plotin. French transla- 
tion. Paris 1859, vol. 2. p. 534). Bouillet, however, seems 
to-refer only to Enmn, 1.1.12; but the’ same cane hardly obe 
said of Enn. 3. 4. 2. cited above. 








{ i . 7 
” j 4 
; RT Mea eee ete 
; a a Lae 
: ; Hila | ¢ ema "6 ay Sy a aA Ar ae wy 
nm yw ul wi dea atl A 
i P 
A v . vod. 
‘ 7 yy fia 
L ® i - 
rea f 
: < 
j ; 
Pe 
4 
’ 
‘ 
i ‘ 





236 


III. AUGUSTINE’S KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK. 


The question as to the extent of Augustine’s acquaint- 
ance with Greek necessarily projects itself into any investiga- 
tion of his sources. Was his knowledge of Greek so rudi- 
mentary and limited as to be of no practical use to him? 
Or was he so thoroughly versed in Greek literature as to be 
able to consult at pleasure any writer in that language whom 
he pleased? Or, while not so rudimentary as to be of no ser- 
vice, and not so comprehensive as to give freedom, was it 
such that in case of necessity he could consult a Greek 
author? Each of these views has had advocates. The one 
extreme view has been adopted by Gibbon (Decline and Fall, 
chap. 33, vol. 3, p. 407 in Bury’s edition): ‘‘ According to the 
judgment of the most impartial critics the superficial learning 
of Augustine was confined to the Latin language.” For the 
Opposite view we may cite the words of Augustine’s Benedic- 
tine panegyrists (Vita Augustini 1. 2. 5, works BH, vol. 1. 69): 
Ea tamen guamtulacumquc Grace? jen 
Mm.o- Di $9 © t4 fiva. -@ Wam: (S10 D-1, 7c Om! pa ee ae 
Us gue. adeo teliciter Wsms is to, eubtcd 
ip.Se 1p rc Oi mma.t a +m. dest iay ens sre. eee 
dem profiessus essets Wi ttieris. G paces 
ad prame (eruditus ) videri <p Ot ua ssierue 
Nam legit Epiphanii comm entacvumm 
die haetresibus «aut certe breviaeeuan 
eas nondum ati ni taste donatum. 
Dieiendie . 4,1] 1.07 am patrum Graécof wm 
libros pervolvit e quibus. tes timomue 
non pauta deprompsit adversus havece- 
ficos: denique crebta Gravecat ames 
cum .interpretatio quae passim im Jerus 
Ops ules, QO CCW rit 6. ediG complurium 
Sie 6rip tata locorTrtum eam coll atio9 me 


237 


PoOavewm Grae torwn. cum ) Latin s ress 
Etta oO dole Wine mit GO es Se poss wn t Au gus 
Binwim “hawd: tas medivo critter Graece 
sciviss e—though it will appear later that this view is not 
so extreme as some consider it. To decide between such op- 
posite views, to accept one or the other or to reject both, we 
propose to ask and answer two questions: (1) What does Au- 
gustine himself say as to his knowledge of Greek? and (2) 
to what extent do Augustine’s works show a use of Greek ? 


1 WHAT DOES AUGUSTINE HIMSELF SAY ABOUT HIS KNOW- 


LEDGE OF GREEK? 


Compare Conm (1,14 Zo.) Owid autem erat 
Crarliscrate CG Un) G Gaserca, sitive ras." jovd-e.riavm 
Geib ws) peuve pul UES em beulesb ar. “ne new nc 


ud em “mihie HSatts “cxiplomatum: jest? 
Nedsavn Vv Ct aim’ end Wat intas, ) nou) @qouvas 
pesmi Im a ois eri) sve'd  iqvavas: | dvo. ce net qa 


Petimatici-vocant gr “Nam otlias op pa 
Mipaese uvbu he ger er vert, scribe re) ee) nea mre aye 
ae dsitsscn tian.) vor minus onerosas 
poeenaléesquic “habeb am quam © mimes 


Giwae Cas 5 again tl. 14. 23, “Cur e€foo Goaleic aim 
Gtiam, girammaticam odéeram talia, can- 
Bam tem ?7) Nam “et Homers pre ratus :te x- 
ere tales. faba kas et dulcissime 
Wil tes EC St vet “mith Itamen amarms vewiayt 
puero. Here Augustine is speaking solely of his early 
boyhood and schoolboy days. Many who afterwards became 
proficient in Greek have felt just as Augustine felt on their 
first introduction to the elements of Greek. And Augustine 
does not here speak as one who so hated Greek that he never 
learned it. He looks back with surprise to his early days and 
wonders why it was he did not like Greek (ne nunc qui- 
Bem mihi satis explorattm est). Besides 
he seems to have been disgusted with the methods employed 
by his teacher (nila ‘enim vierba illa nov: 


238 


eram _€t i S@eV US. pte mriomgt Dare | vac nq) proremens 
Ut nossem» ins tabaitu rom iha wiebenreniter: 
Conf. 1. 14. 23). We know, however, from the above cita- 
tion that he read Homer at school, however distasteful the 
task was. 

In De Trin. prooemium 3. 1, we read, Quod si ea 
qa ace he e4 mu's- de. his) riewb aes. sat iG 
tie.) ve dita in! Gitmo. Ser nome” Vaast synhoun 
SUM tat on Oy atnivie mun! tury /SasWae ex .egenantae 
diisif ie etebem ca NiGkb S| ae iri “cune. camer 
Gu esc. ae. = aU em, lines 0 ave. yO) ns SS tat aaa online 
tran u's bab ehesi “ie ta acum ea or ee inloeRanS 
evsre n drs) est: (i nbtlet live end. ics jel eon eemordad 
Pepieria mister) dio eh. quo: @-emveuve iG eam 
aru mex “11s iqribates io bis, Pp auiciay 1 ot exper 
tata sunt.) nen diwbito “chu mse-t ay ig mide 
wt liter .@ uu aerie:-re op 0'S:ssu-mu Ss) (e-0n tf tense male 
In these words Augustine means that his knowledge of Greek 
was not sufficient for him to read the Greek fathers who had 
written on subjects connected with the Trinity. The passage 
certainly implies some acquaintance with Greek, and that 
rather limited. We may well suppose that in such an import- 
ant work as the De Trinitate, on which the author spent so 
many years, he would have read the Greek fathers, who ex- 
celled in this very subject, if his knowledge of Greek had 
been by any means sufficient to the task. Augustine evidently 
did not find himself at home in the vast field of Greek theo- 
logical writings. It is only fair to state, however, that a 
piece of Greek on such an abstract and difficult subject as 
the Trinity would not be the easiest kind of reading for one 
like Augustine, with his limited knowledge of that language. 

Contra “Litteras’ Petiliani: 2-38-95.) Seite eraxOr ag Gee 
dem -Giaecae liniguiee Bore ri piarmim jase 
cin tus * swim, 1é ti(prope: mihi ao nm eames 
im pudeniter«direéoe ime + no s8s ee + eXor) anon 
esse unum sed totum, (et, kad’ Glo sec un 
dum totum. Augustine uses these words in a contro- 





239 


versy, and no doubt there is some modesty in them. He 
frankly confesses he knows very little about Greek, just enough 
for his present purpose. So much for what Augustine says 
himself about his knowledge of Greek, from which we would 
conclude that while he was not a master of that tongue, and 
while he did not claim to know much about Greek, he could 
use it somewhat when necessary. If we can prove that his 
knowledge of Greek was neither exact nor extensive, his own 
words also prove that he has made no such pretension. 

These three are the only passages where Augustine com- 
ments directly on his own knowledge of Greek. 


Il TO WHAT EXTENT DO AUGUSTINE'S WORKS SHOW A 
KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK? 


We turn now to ask to what extent do Augustine's works 
show a knowledge of Greek? What use did he make of what 
amount of Greek he knew? Does an investigation in this mat- 
ter prove that Augustine knew more or knew less Greek than 
he himself has stated, as we have seen above ? 

1. First, let us examine Augustine’s use of Latin trans- 
lations from Greek authors. In Conf. 8. 2. 3 he says com- 
HwemMLOn avi. LES tS) S.e7 me .q W.0,5.d.a, my. la Day Ors 
Palate ONC Otm. . Gt Ors: Vie t.0 riavuSiyquU.on = 
Ciara t se t.Osre tr Duis. RO Ma Gu... ve n0g IN, « Laas 
nam linguam transtulisset, which books he had 
mentioned previously as having in his possession: quos- 
meres dat Oo C-O fb Wm cll Dt OS. ex, . Grae Ca 
Mipmpte tent le fi aati Nude W ©30.S OS (7. 0-184). 

Here we may pause to ask who are the Platonici, or 
Neoplatonists, to whom Augustine refers in these words? In 
DCD, VIII. 12 he gives the chief Greek Platonists as Plotinus 
Iamblichus and Porphyrius. Of an acquaintance with the 
works of lamblichus we find no trace whatever in the writings 
of Augustine. Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doc- 
fina de Deo .p, 26) says Lum, lam blLich um seme) 
tantum nominatum V Lx de ¢.uSt as s.¢ 
videtur. Soalso Grandgeorge (Saint Augustin et le Néo- 


240 


platonisme, p. 41). The other important Neoplatonist whom Au- 
gustine mentions is Apuleius, whose works are in Latin. From 
the above statements, and from the fact that Augustine so 
frequently mentions, and cites from the writings of Plotinus 
and Porphyry, we may safely decide that these are the Neo- 
platonist writers whose works he read through the Latin 
version of Victorinus. We should expect that if Augustine 
had had an easy reading knowledge of Greek he could not have 
failed to read or at least occasionally consult in the original the 
writings in which was embodied the system of philosophy to 
which he himself was so much attached, and from the in- 
fluence of which he never escaped ; and specially is this so 
when we consider that the original Greek of Porphyry and 
Plotinus was far better suited to express philosophic ideas and 
abstract subtilties than was the Latin of his version. We 
should thus expect Augustine to have used Plotinus and Por- 
phyry in the original (had his knowledge of Greek been suffi- 
cient) as a modern English-speaking scholar reads French and 
German treatises. 

We ask next whether Augustine read Plato and did he 
read him in the original? The writings of Plato cannot be in- 
cluded inthe quosdam libros Pkatonico0fu m 
ques Vietorimus. (219 ln ewan ata 
att glans 6 ult ss €.. Nor have we the slightest 
suggestion from any source that the same Victorinus trans- 
lated the works of Plato. In fact we can find no trace what- 
ever of any complete Latin version of Plato in the days of Au- 
gustine. We know that Cicero translated and paraphrased 
portions of Plato. Did Augustine then read Plato for himself 
and in the original? There is one passage from which we 
might feel tempted to infer that he did so, namely De beata 
Vita 1. 427 ‘S'ed “né im ‘pihalos oe phi1ae stem. 
ium welerr tet adv ova rT ein, Larter 
ixoris honoris que’ Qlleoebhr a “aewine. 
bar; wt “cum hiatec  €s sem “Comms e cum 
tum dem um: me, qaod “pancis Pe cise 
Simis  Trewi1t, “ties we lis” to mina brsraeiee 


241 


Mem vse un bem simu tm” Tapert em ' mb rq ue 
Son quiesce rem, me cris: taut em” “Pla 
tonis pa uc is’s1 m1-S liber Si, Cui us! ftv 
tse es nuedl 1 ors ds sl mus aie cre pi, |) verb Tiare 
fvqiie: clin ses, Qua lit wm, potui yy etiam 
Pike um auc oritate. qui “dawitnia: *m:y’s = 
emia, sb rad ikdierm nt. We cannot, however, build 
an argument for Augustine’s direct knowledge of Plato (or 
portions of Plato) on this passage when we take into account 
the fact that five manuscripts read PJlotini for Platonis. Even 
apart from this, and taking the passage as it stands, this single 
statement may not count for much, being unsupported by any 
other direct or indirect references, and other considerations 
must be given due weight. Augustine’s knowledge of Plato is 
more general than specific, nor is it so great as is generally 
supposed. His knowledge of the doctrines and philosophy of 
Plato is such as he could well derive from an intimate acquain- 
tance (such as he had) with the Neo-platonist philosophers. 
These latter who revived Plato and sought to re-establish his 
influence in the form of Neo-platonism had of necessity to bring 
forward again the fundamental teachings of their master. 
From this source Augustine could derive a very considerable 
second-hand knowledge of Plato: and many of the doctrines of 
Plato which he mentions and discusses are common to Plato 
and to the Neo-platonists, and he found them chiefly in Plotinus. 
This has been well stated by Grandgeorge (Saint Augustin et 
le Néo-platonisme, Paris 1896, chap. 1, p. 53) ‘‘les doctrines 
dont ils’ agit étaient pour la plupart communes a Platon et 
aux néo-platoniciens, et les ressemblances que |’ on signale 
avec Platon se retrouvent pour Plotin. Que reste-t-il done du 
Platonisme de Saint Augustin ? Peu de choses si |’ on recherche 
ce qui, en lui, a été exclusivement inspiré par Platon et son 
école proprement dite ; des ressemblances assez grandes, une 
impulsion assez considérable si |’ on considére ce que ses 
théories offrent de commun avec le platonisme et le néo-pla- 
tonisme.” In addition tothe knowledge of Plato derived from 
Neo-platonism, no doubt Platonism itself as a system was dis- 


242 


cussed in the schools in the days of Augustine, and thus 
he would have the opportunity of learning the teachings 
of Plato from the lectures of his prafessors. Even if Platon- 
ism or the system of Plato was not discussed in and for itself, 
it must of necessity have been studied, at least in its elements, 
as an introduction to Neo-platonism. We may conclude 
then that Augustine derived his knowledge of Plato, not from 
the original Greek, and also not from any complete 
Latin version, but from versions of some portions of Plato such 
as those made by Cicero, (as for example the Timaeus, which 
Augustine tells us he quotes: Nempe Platonis 
haveve ¢ vier bag S wart!) Sivem-t ) e1a4 oC tacteinn aan 
Latinum vertit. DCD, XII "16, pis75i17) trom the 
writings of Cicero in general, who often discusses 
Plato,, and informs us of his doctrines, as. in the 
now lost Hortensius (which must be regarded as a 
chief source of Augustine’s knowiedge of philosophy; see 
Literary Sources, p. 23), from such of the fathers as Lactantius, 
from his intimate acquaintance with the translated writings and 
theories of the Neo-Platonists, especially of Plotinus, and from 
the discussions on Plato and Platonism in the schools of his 
day. From Apuleius also he derived some knowledge of Plato, 
and provably also from the De philosophia of Varro, with 
which Augustine was familiar, as we learn from DCD XIX. 1-3. 

Returning to our subject—Augustine’s use of translations—- 
from de Haeresibus 83, we learn that Augustine read the 
Church history of Eusebius in the Latin translation of Rufi- 
muss (Cin mo Buse bia hy 1s tie Ci atm Sc Tatetae aes 
ess emir ci SRuaiiaenies. sao Se Yorn aaa ae 
linguam tian Silrait-a SU .bD)s eq 1 este 1 am 
etiaim™ tem pro-tiaim  id/aso.s) yl gous), sar didaidpige: 
In a letter to Jerome (Ep. 28. 2) he requests the latter to send 
to North Africa a translation of the Greek commentators in 
order that he may be able to consult them in a Latin version: 
Pie tim ws. sergio. (et mM olbi sicniimy pe tite omnes 
African ata m* ees lresavalt im mils tad 0-S asim 
cietas wt Labter pre tiain divs) ¢jo rum ii bies 





Ee ee ee en Le Vere oP aa 


243 


GuiiaGir ake ic-ey Sori pti ras nos tt as quam 
Dep times: ira Gitva vie ruin t curam a tig we 
OypPyeweaym: Giamep- e nee te —nrOm yorearvelr.is.; Pio ties 
Emit Ji hisce me. sutts- my Ors) a quusoig ure ‘hia b e.a= 
Bigdiss Meaulte Sia il loocSa -Velt OFst,) <ect) Unum. © prortis= 
Seis erm. there mt iis sei tte nls Ss omparss 
In this case a translation was not at hand, yet Augustine pre- 
ferred to send to Jerome for such rather than to attempt the 
Greek commentators himself. 

When he quotes Homer, it is in a Latin version, as in 
DH Nee Gulia vaiaqiet.versus *Hvoate rice 

PeCudbOrsmemOrtc le tiGay tir. Me ay tins ime. wae atria: 

From the above citations we see that Augustine on all 
ordinary occasions preferred a Latin version when he could 
get it. The fact that Augustine shows this propensity for 
using translations, taken by itself, would lead us to think he 
knew very little about Greek, but we cannot draw a complete 
conclusion from this single feature alone. 

2. Second. In regard to Augustine’s use of Greek 
words and phrases. There are many such scattered 
parougin ‘his: “works: .Compare’ DCD) IV; 2x, ~ .q aiord 
Gin ae.c'e-dpery > -diereur Wileiertatiest ME fe 
Ste iey ito term jeatetil sien itole nga quam arpetav 
Gia cictimarro cari 7) Vive pudoss Gir a eve ee fab) nella 
dicitur; VII. 1, deitatem—6edrnra; VII. 6, mun- 
di, q wemeGraeci veo can t x«coopove; VII. 8;\- pa- 
ectatwUnit we Gta enchiy. orpavov.ca.p pré Wl ants. VIL. a5. 
vexviopavtetay (OF vexpopavteiav). So also VIII. 7, évvotas; VIII. 
17, 7dOos; X. 1, Opyoxeia, cioéBevav, OeoogBeav, Aatpeta, X. 28, 
marpikov vow ed= est paternam, mentem.- sive 
intellectum. XI. 13, ¢ddcypo; XIII. 24, zvevpa, rvon. 
In De Haeres. 4, he gives the numerical equivalents of the 
letters composing the cabbalistic word aBpacag; in 17 he ex- 
plains Ophitae from odis; 51, dporovorov; 52, Hvevpa- 
Topaxous; 57, evxi7ae ab orando sic appellati; 
in 63 he explains Passalorynchitae by mdoaados 
enim Graeceg~iicitur patus et pryyosnasus, 


244 


cum Graece et dicatur digitus 6ddxrvrAos— 
Dactylorynie hita.e. «De Trin. 4. Wo. 135) seleness 
ibid. 14. 1. 1, QeooéBao ; ibid. 4. 21. 31, ad hibito spir-- 
Liu etiam, rat ieomala Syuerl anetieiiliee tinea 
—hoc enim quibusdam placuit appellare 
quod Graeci ,diewunt, voepoy, Enarr..in Ps, 216, 
sermo 17:2; dpsicip hin am cq uam Gra eci. azo 
pellant zavdeav; ibid. sermo 11. 6, rAceov enim Lat- 
ime plms. St. 2 xccis Sha. bil tas. Yeistt 3 esa ep aes 
habendo appellata est mndrcovegia; ibid. Prrapyupia 
quo: vie rb'o Sie a Li Ca ture am or preicuatae. 
Sermo. 45. 5, evian ¢ éliu m enim Lia tie 
DORWS - DUD tims (6 Sst 4) .sermo@o7 a1) Sele mio 
yon a. qrutip pe. Grate ce) mas ‘end: Ce mda mercies 
De Genz adlitteram 2; 175, 35; “ep eri mentary qnrcaie 
illi amoreXeopara vocant: Enarr. in Ps. 77.1, Propo- 
Grtion es. amtienm quac Gracce apprellam- 
tur zpoBdAnpara. In DCD XVIII. 23 Augustine translates 
Inoots Xpiaros Ocod vids cwryp CuOd est Latine lIesus 
Christus Diei. frliaus Salvator; “andeimethe 
same chapter he explains the mystic monogram ix@vs. Such 
are examples of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek words and 
their derivations. 

He was also able to distinguish between the Greek syno- 
nyms, e.g: _Enarr. in Ps. 118, sermo 4. 1, he says dyav is 
equivalent to nimis, and odddpa to valde. In 
Quaest. in Hept. 1. 65 (Gen. 24. 41) opxos enim dici- 
ttalr! °s0-Wa €1.0:;-% <epa” Sma l-edice tom .:, einsveD 
X. 1 he distinguishes Aatpela, Opyoxeta eto €Bera and OeoogBeaa. In 
Ep. 197. 2 he distinguishes xpovovs from kapots: Nostri 
autem utrumque hoc vérbum, tempor 
appelhant. siwe xpoves -sive Kaipovs, Cum 
habeant haec duo vnte?t -sesmonmepie- 
gendam differentia m: .xapotsi) q Wipipesap- 
pellamt®G@raeci tempora. quaecd amy nen 
tamen quae’ in spatiorum voluminrbds 
transeunt, sed quae-in re bias aid falas 


245 


Guha sop portinn is wel imp ort uw nis: .s em 
Count Un -Siewt mes Sis vin demi a-ccalhor 
Paes p ae De wl ~eve eSiid) (qha a. 's iam. iy laicals 
xpovours autem inpas! a S' pial tila tem por um 
vocant. This cannot be said to be a superficial distinction 
on the part of Augustine; he thoroughly understood how to 
discriminate these two words. He also knew the difference 
between oy and Bios: quam vitam Graeci non 
Gye nea. Gorey ocant, § De Prins fi. 7. UE 
NEDSS 24 Ohno d 1taque.Griaé-c.e. avon d1c¢i- 
tire mio titi, sa liq wan-d-o Coote lina” Det tiny? ali- 
cpindanvdons (“i mes paiiriastdso neem: veh ‘ais pikea.- 
PAoOnmedniy 9 equraid oO. etiam. HD ei) ‘di'eit- ucts 
inberpretati Sunt >) mews vero num quam 


aieSiig) CSepMe rate My SSa view) haormish Mi/Sah are es ive 
BUCIG-Osb t's) <2. eSilev, CMe 1S tition (Cr Epon EL amy Gd 
Sina ma viemtms: dic tir. “in Quaest: in dey: oan 


he distinguishes between oxevtos (hoc enim nomen 
Sieyuteria Were Sty FO Mimi my) Mustiemssi lium) “and 


ayyeroy. i( nya ma het thvo ec Last pnia. lin gw a. ySwiase 
Gabeist ie. sie d wayyeov Si bhud omagia-s “ignrt.ed lis 
eiteu, wars quod  hitg- u.o-r em © \cxaip it )ige ain 


Quaest. in Num. 3, between dddoyevis and daddddvados. 
ImeOuaest, 4m “Deut: 23 hessays “parere’ qui pipe 


itwecicrevs aq wold 6S x “hen twa... . Vea oe 
mere’ autem est vyevgr. In Locut. in Gen. 48. 1 
djuos—plebs, dydos—turba. In Locut. in Gen. 50. 


2 he distinguishes between évragiaca: and Oawa, These in- 
stances are only a small part of what might be cited—all of 
like tenor. All such instances show is that Augustine knew 
many Greek words with their Latin equivalents, and was fair- 
ly well able to distinguish between synonyms. His etymo- 
logies are, of course, crude, even when they are correct, as 
is usually the case. 

3. Third. We now pass to a more interesting topic, namely, 
Augustine’s use of Greek in his exegetical works. We begin 
with the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. From the opening 


246 


words of the prooemium we learn that Augustine consulted the 
Septuagint : Ci m SC ba pt. aaredss Sra ae tars 
q wale Saipspe Lilia nt ar he ano W Peace 4 Werese mdaa 
et) CumValiis) co date 1 bas) se ctu daa fone 
tila gin Cali tec priest alt io nie %e1o a ive nc .emuuo 
Pe Tic urd ere wis iis 3.9 da IOuaEse; ia lepi ee 
(Gen. 7. 24) he mentions the versions of Aquila and Sym- 
machus, but we cannot find evidence for his having consulted 
them in'Greek. 7 naam VArquuli aed i & rt. “0\b tiara mee. 


Symmachus Eperiace Vd area antes ibid 1. 43 
(Gen: 19. 15) Ca eC l tater Grae ci) ia Demat 
dopacia Qu od. Mmia‘ga's Signi i4 cath, is waded 
possit, . “avidenmtiial >. 27.420 Elvo%e” Snepaprom mene 
Vt | peer ie usssa Sa qui quae me bras 
Elisaeuwme? Here Augustine not only consulted the 


LXX on the passage in question, and showed that the Greek 
word expressed more than the word representing it in the 
Latin version, but he also found the word dopacia occurred in 
another place in the LXX (4 Reg. 6. 18) of a similar kind of 
blindness.) Ubids1.65 (Gen. 24:41) Ioatinmeodices =a 


riramien to umeo {ov el. war rati-o-nite se) mmeuaies 
Graeci ‘hia bent} Sa una le tac to ta elo apres 
enim -“<@iert wre iwrati0 7 dea Sorvaledictium:: 
Here he examined the LXX dz rijs dpas pou; ibid. 1, 69 (Gen. 
24.63) exerceri: qui verbum de hac re 
Graecum Ne Sic 1M Ey, exe revutat i omtem 
60 T'p.oris “puitan <2. ¥ Ste rise mM -, 6st fapaieemn 
Graece _ dédodr\ecyjoa: ddolkecyettv Vero ad animi 
Che em Cirt abd oO mews per timet. er Myesave pre 
Viti ov de pa tatu rabid r.gqg4Gene25e27) eo 
simplex: /Qu0od- Graeéece dient tT lar Noares 
hoe Latrnar ts i miplie em? ilnaterpis ena 
Ssunt:oproprice autem drdacros S10 fie twss- 
unde aliqui Latini interpre tesi sia 


dolo” imterpretati. samt, ooibidii76o. (Gene: 
33) Quod habent obatinre codices a=. 
pavit autem [ siasac pavore magno 





Pee a 





OER Oe a eee 


247 


valde, Graeci habent é&éorn d€ "Ioadk &koracw 
peyadynv opodpa, ibid. 1. 82 (Gen. 28.2) Latini codices 
: CVEGC tei ames ese GEsaT eal 0] -Ctoud isGeersr) Vinson 
iva hit ar dee Stsve dot me 2" “ho ey esta 
amoopadr, bid n. or, (Gens 30. rr) 1) bee’a t a we le ie lr x 
farextea ly) Sou mm; Graecr habiemt \ comin iq word 
MMA cseshOrON ane ROT Uniam Us iomrivea te iin 


this same place, however, Augustine falls into the mistake of 
deriving raya from riyn, Ibid. 1. 93 (Gen. 37. 42) he also 


consulted ther Ax 3) Sqruco-d) t anto- o brs Crucri us , 
Mimi nto  bieev il Salas Se prt marr ta-\dictwm 
Core a pide Looe (Gent 43,10) im ax inmé-) quia 


Himiees sdurtiic deleo im "Guraeicio: ideale ti m: é.s.t; 
Gal Oat Chu lear 2 yrisd e mi ti'sis:i mse siorhe tyve £ i 


Wren Umi us fir exe Stet et te ack cox non 
enim dixit zpdcwrov rod Oeov, Sed dixit zpdcwrov 
Geod. Pra Cane aeW ft €m brorc  Fitnrie) Msicornenct 
eiied, Gt S.tvalnet tas dutcrastiar eqn orG Pace Orr aim 
enko- @) Wk um a Uae € atque ino tel Piece 
Soe nit: This distinction mentioned shows some.critical 


observation on the part of Augustine in the use of the LXX. 
In ibid. 1. 117. 1 (Gen. 35. 26) he says that some would read 
hare Ei: soi ni trinsteadon mati, sun. €. “accordinotothe 
LXX éyé&ovro, In ibid 1. 132 (Gen. 41. 1) he compares the 
émi THs whyns Of Gen. 24. 13 with the emi rod worayod of the pas- 
sage on which he is commenting. ibid. 1. 152 (Gen. 46, 
26-27)—on this disputed passage he again consults the LXX. 

Less important passages in the first book of Quaest. in 
Hiepty apes. 701 TOG. 12.729 1 25s. L3G: 

From this examination of the Quaest. in Gen. we would 
infer that Augustine throughout consulted the LXX. 

We find the same phenomena in the Quaestiones in Exo- 
dum. Compare Quaest. in Ex. 47 (Ex. 12. 37), where Au- 
gustine consulted the LXX. wAny ris arockevis, aeeitie rs 
sieSet, Cwm Etim) Paved: ce ints urns: | We-remarks) that 
the same word is used in Gen. 43. 8, where it is rendered by 
substantia. In Quaest. 66 (Ex. 18. 12) he quotes the 


248 


LXX. évavriov rod Geod, Again Quaest. in Ex. 78 (Ex. 21. 8), 
Ono dd) =sa in Gra eGo deiregern m esset 
Gmokutpocerakh SCTiptum esset sicut scrip- 
tum.est (Et dose +redimeéet hse ael eaaaam 
et) exoNurpieeras “SC rip tum: est. —Lbne “htocesa- 
tem loco amodvrpocoe Legitur. Quaest. in Ex. 94 
(Ex. 23. 35), Hic Graecus dovretoys habet non 
Aatpevons. In Quaest. in Ex. 114 (Ex. 28. 3) he would correct 
the Latin version which gave intellectus instead of 
sensus_ for aic@joews. In Quaest. 116 (Ex. 28. 22) he 
notices rationale _ is the usual translation of AoyKor, 
not of Adyov which the LXX here gives. Quaest. 131 (Ex. 
30..4);. Im duo laterar “tac ersriimn) ideanovbauns 
hateri buss quondaim-. Grmiéeds - habe tec 
Ta. Ovo KXitn ToLnoes ev Tois vol TAevpots. Nam xdirn latera 
Smt, €t wiepe batiera sumity,) Udi. sais 
ava mis Slitast ion a Sic) Wnptierr p Fertieaven Sun £)5 
"in -«<dhas! partes falcaes dae dinioaes sian 


eribwss> Neon «20 te m~ tanto Gracies: mies 
gn.0d Test! “parte sity “Ss eds via tqsnotdes tars 
tera.’ Hethen says that the same word «Airy is found in 


Ps. 127. 3 (ev KAtreou THs oikias gov). Quaest. 151, Graecus 
habet yuores, hoe quidam Latitur 1meter- 


pret attics an 't. {um anahes te..7 son mi) sae ae 
tura now «dix erit. ) gavepés: » PotuLub eric 
f.o.r £iays.s:e ap teas: hada Cd: Aegan FS: Cries ie i eiiges 


In Quaest. 154 (Ex. 33. 19) he comments on the Latin ren- 
dering of the two words éAejow and oiktepyow of the LXX. 
Quaest. 157 (Ex. 34.-12), (N-o\m ‘e'n tor ha bie GGranes 
cus “niequando “ponas’ sed “ne quandp 
ponat.”. Quaest, 168,  “De:nrp.tromniem: | stan 
inter pmetati. sunt Latin squad -Graccus 
habet ddaipena. 

For the other instances of the employment of the Sep- 
tuagint in the Quaest. in Ex. not noticed above see Quaes- 
tiones 11, 42; 43, 50, So, 86, 98, 104; nog, 115, F17; 128; 229, 
134, 193, 150; 177: DT. 2, Q. &7 (om the etabernacie:) 


249 


Thus we find in the Quaestiones in Exodum a more fre- 
quent comparison of the Latin version with the Septuagint 
rendering. 1 

In the Quaestiones in Leviticum (Quaest. in Hept., book 
3) we do not find the LXX used to the same extent, but we do 
find it used often enough to lead us to infer that Augustine 
had that version before him throughout. Compare Quaest. in 
ewer (kev One20), . post m-ertdpem:’ —gq ucod 
Gisecws Wa biet "eAwov.... iresa si tamen 
Wom re cte mtherpretattm —¢st ¢x 1110 
quod Graecus habet épurd. Quaest. 29 (Lev. 9. 


24a ove ns Lae tus eS tees. Gio.d alii 
i eunprr cruises daigxeeaa n.te Ste x palwaety, <COmn = 
am hes — transi etre de Gira.eC10))). quuvord 


dictum est éo0rm unde €&oraoss dicitur. 
Onaest.38 (lev, tr.47) quae Graecus haib.e:t 
lwoyovotvra «Ss OStri quidam ‘vivificantia’ 
interpretari maluerunt. Quaest. 4o.(Levs 12, 
oO) Neritow ergo Quidam nostri im ten- 


MeRIeGL to S Uinta be ot TOM idvise eerie nm by sisntks 
Per tilte awe sa per fil ta’. va mc Fermin 
Tim HWius praepositionis -esse intel - 
exer uit, loc, loco, cube) Gra eiciuse eat 


éd’ vid 7 eri Ovyarpi. Quaest. 41 (Lev. 13. 20), sed po- 
puit et Graccus mon divcene | adi, wyds ie sit 
SaGew mi «sed pono, Ard eis t-»<om-acceu lam 5. 
@uaest, 50 (lev. 13. 48), Sed non ait Graecus 
épyacpévy Sépparr, ait autem épyacivw. He then goes on 
to note that the latter word is also used in the book of 
Kings (1 Reg. 20. 19) in die operaria (eT pepe 
7H épyacipy). 

Quaest. go (Lev. 25. 23) is a fair example of textual 
criticism on the part of Augustine: ‘in profana- 
Gio nim. elitr Co dice Ss jh.a Dente *1 <¢romi- 
firmationem . Quam men dositatem 11 
alcvenwd tris = Uptri ws in Grae cro aces. 
uiSse aA2rbitiram proptem verbi si md deta 


250 


sonum, feByloos enim ‘profanatio’ dici- 
tur, PeBaions awtem: *conhitim ato, 


For the other instances of Augustine’s use of Greek in 
the Quaestiones in Leviticum not mentioned above see Quaest. 


ZB ET, £7, 20,25) 34,35, 435505533 54) 559 00: 


In the Quaestiones in Numeros (Quaest. in Hept. 4) it is 
evident that he consulted the Septuagint there also, though 
the instances are not so numerous as in the Quaestiones on 
Genesis and on Exodus and on Leviticus. In Quaest. 1 (Num. 
1. 16) he wonders why the tribal officers are called XiAcapxor in 
the Greek, his difficulty seeming to be the derivation of the 
word according to which such officers should be over only a 
fhousand..- Quaest. 22 Mir wm est a ustean qe 
modo abusive alienitgena dicitur- 
dd\doyerjs et non magis 4dAdddpvdos, quod sig- 
nirtiteat alterius t2i b as” hro mr tiem sami 
Romine Magis “atitua Sree peu mane 
aliarum gentium heminibus-= ~ Here Aggus 
tine shows that he was indeed aware of the different 
meanings of these two Greek words in the LXX. 


Qudesk, rr A( Num 5. 35a) Grirarescrurs habet 
gdopxuov Guo verbo videtur significari 
‘Turament um per (6x Ss ecmrat 7 Ome mie see 


have another example of textual criticism in Quaest. 28 (Num. 
ro. 30), ln Vist one” “ose ude ts Dicuss: 

Otidam- 1mber pre va tl tu mat, ie pee 
ostendet Dominus -crédo putan tes die- 
tum xdopar, quod Graece positum  ¢acpar. 
Quaest, 39, Quam dixit Su periis <a 
contradicectionis., tps dm di-cre ac. ima 
edictionis’, non €Mim ait avrAoyes | sem 
Nodopias. In Quaest. 41 (Num. 26. 3) he gives the derivation 


of dvdbepa—arod Tod avw TiHévar, 


> 


The other instances of the use of Greek in this book will 


be found -in , Quaest. -4,:/14,. 49, 52,155.» We seegthat, 
although Augustine had the LXX version before his eyes all 





251 


through, he mentions its readings only twelve times in the 
Quaest. in Numeros. 

Still less frequently does he mention it in the Quaest. in 
Deut. (Quaest.,in; Hept.5).. Quaest.s 23. (Deut. + 15.129); 
mpwtorokov.. Quaest. 39 (Deut. 24. 7), where he would correct 
Av atte rte. wmyaylusm 3¢ x.-v.o-b.1/s: 1 psa s ~by:showing 
that the Greek reads rov rovnpdy not 76 zovypor, as the latter was 
represented in Latin by hoc malignum andthe former 
by a wanes, ma lion ume. Quaest. 52. (Deut. .29- 19) 
dyapapryrov. Quaest. 55 (Deut. 32. 5) Quod est:in 
Graeco rexva popynta. Thus there are four references to 
the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Deut. 

There are the same number (four) of references to the 
Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Iesum Nave (Quaest. in Hept. 
6), Compare Quaest. 4 (los. 4. 7) €ws tov aiwvos, In Quaest. 
12 (los. 9. 4) an instance occurs worth citing: Nonnulli 
cond ces) 6 he Gara cele tal) -acthiomiy heaybte im t 75 


Soup ei! Lv) im €£GyS5 yo tos. ~ “aplitiv tvie ror qua a 
Meue asc 1.0.f.€ S, ena de mtinie/ eon la bre mt y sai 
Peete pi We CuhyOrS oi aS Code Shure. bass laos oe Sim 
iste Gd. O. “echsitms wemibioyiny (Gira ec a> lim outa 
Mmige nm. Gtovs 1. tiartaerm: ¢ frarcuale im y heres tS. 2 0. poy 


Geud-pepre, <€)ts covey —n 0 ny sm-u Lt um,..ab iniv teem 
dris.S/O;nvasn ts iniQuaest. 19.(losyi16. 0) thes thinks? the 
latter half of the verse has been added by the Septuagint in- 
terpreters after the event, as indeed it is found in the LXX, 
but not in the Hebrew or in Jerome’s version. In Quaest. 24 
(loss23..04) he would correct: the -r ecu rrio! x i:arm/ tof 
fe lialatOu uc fC. Tit tO4 Off ce x Con. Tr Poy from, the LXx 
GTOTPEXW. 

In the Quaestiones in Iudices (Quaest. in Hept. 7) we 
find a similar employment of the LXX version. In Quaest. 41 
he gives the Greek words for Epud or Ephud though they do 
not occur in the verses on which he is writing. _ Compare also 
Quaest. 45 (lud 9. 23) where he notes that the Greek word 
which occurs in that verse occurs also in Ps. 42. 3, where it is 
translated emitte as in the Itala of Iud. 9. 23. 


252 


From the above investigation in the Quaestiones in Hept. we 
see that Augustine used the Septuagint, more or less, through- 
out; that he could consult it intelligently, give the different 
shades of meaning of different Greek words, that he at- 
tempted elementary textual criticism on it, that he could 
amend or justify the Latin versions by comparing them with it. 

We next take up the seven books of the Locutiones in 
Heptateuchum in which we find similar phenomena with the 
above in the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. Compare Locut 
in Geng, T° wit Gr dee © SiG sr Lp t.aemy Erste 
dpovimpworatos nOn oodwratos, which shows that he must 
have looked up the LXX. Again Locut. in Gen. 3. 15 
Graeci -haben€. “tn mMmedte tus ttn 
medio mulieris,’ where he had consulted the Greek 
(ava pécov cov Kal ava pécov THs yuvackos). The other instances in 
this book are Locut. in“Gen? 3. 173 6.6, 1m Gr aeeo 
invenitur cueonly, quod Mapis; {reco ga- 
favite. quam **poea tt unite 9 sig nite ame 
perhibetur. Note that here Augustine does not posi- 
tively and on his own authority make this statement but falls 
backon a perhbrtbe tir. (6,14, Gralecicniec mn 
arcam mec “tn aroa. "ha bent... s ¢de na 
dos faced esa meaim + 6. 16, Ce St rads wes 

-quod- Graece - dicitur e«xmeyors 7 a 
PAI Oy i. 22 Leffel 40 Gerptre tem quod 


Gara €uco 1s habet omaptiov quod bia ti n-€ 
‘filum’? intelli eitwr,- as ab 1s transiated-an 
ferome’s: version; 16 %4); "27. “8° 24. 26)" 26: 26> Uo sners 
habemt > Latind <coiduces “Et & oy es: se 


boves fetantur, Graeci habent )fecan- 
tur super me,’ as indeed the LXX has én’ Gué; 34 
29, Graeci cupdra Servos appellant usita- 
tissima locutione, sed quia non ouwpata sed 
copara Cictum est; 43. 18, where onthe Itala: ut 
Aceciplias (no's in ‘S®rvos ¢f asinGos ias- 
trios he comments non wtique ‘stbawdtttr 
‘serves nam quod Latin cod- 


253 


ices “Ser Vv OS” hearb emit, in Gitravese-1's 
matoas Wero uy tote. quod He ualalee modo 
ast tied possunt esse. AAA POt Adal ESAS. 
Tore gq. er Mino imiwemald! himgucal L atime 
quemadodum ap pre Ulta riest evradiagrTas : 
HeGron Ween me eeu pis) Lostesp e hhivu mst, 4 hd) ~~ eisxh, 
(Homa en man ad amit, Clolr po fa) mont 1O:n wom 


qrusord' = nom est Graece_ évraguicas sed ~ Odiar. 
Illi ergo érapoorat id agunt quod ex- 
Reber mrt COrponib ws ) human is>. 


In the Locutiones de Exodo (Locut. in Hept. 2) we find a 
similar and frequent use of the LXX version. Compare 
Pocttn in bx tl 2c7 og. 22) 4 GT ale es) non 
MRabet. Chet voix ht whi, » sed. com tino 
ohin wit “Ue cred ants, as the IX xX of the 
verse does thus begin (iva motevowoi gor). 4.6 Graecus 
Byori) hyarble tussive mp moma V Stend= f alnutlm)) ta lcitra 
€ést tamquam nix’ (éyayéy.... aoe yw). 5. 21; 
6. 5 Onis tiesradem) sic) Wass joi myc Oelehe itieth, fag 
Gelinas ce t, Hmicollu er umet) ci me ay oi he Saysnsswe 
emuidie habe) Gu aeccus,) q molds) Uti que mies 
aie y Gakiae ce: a I meerikas aa bis ude 4 Sys dke baer 
SiOulane seit tamer) = Gverp tuba imytray 1mitear = 
Di etm saetom tas, tyantaesit “qao\sh ita 
bogui non piguit. » Mere he-had before, him the 
Greek tiv yh i tapwxyKacw év 7 Kal TapwKyncav én’ aiTys. 6. 125 
(eee eB Oe 31. Ow lanl4o, CoRuGriy it Orla ha Cora esl p.' ts 
76 xopa THs yys. 10.23 Quod Latini habent ‘Et 
nemo WaliGidet firactyr eam suum td Dawics 
dire bravsy aGanare.cuuss hash et. SRite non <viajds it 
nemo fratrem suum.’ This shows us that in Au- 
gustine’s LXX the words tpe?s yuepas were not found, as they 
are wanting in the Alexandrine MS. and in some others. 12. 
Tose tesa Cw sean ini, dhvajbyeyt; Gargaye C.Us: Kale elma 
Aéyew. 20. 24; 21. 6.5 In 28. 24 (LXX 28. 29) he falls into 
a mistake joining 7a dAvovdwra with the preceding words rovs 


254 


er, instead of joining them with the anCeedine 7 words 
ex’ auotepuv. 

In the Locutiones de Levitico (Locut. in Hept. 3) there 
is a less frequent use of the Septuagint, though it has still been 
used. ‘Compare Locut: de Lev. 5: 10 quod (tb? +ha bet 
MTs TTP. os 12.9 Pies Komaeiows enim Fi-arbert 
Kal €pets Tpos avtovs N€ywr, 02,7255 EGs  20"-Garde & enim 
Graecus 4dxaOaptos dv dxabaptos eora, Quasi dicer- 
eit « 4 anim unicdeuss) ee Sot Ess in mi-n e is era e 

So also in the Locutiones de Numeris (Locut. in Hept. 4). 
14.35 QO wa er end um pest Same quia d,ss.106, .qarod 
Graece= poSitum ceSst uy,  Lostrit “6 mim 
in fer pre tes ioc paren e) “utd qeue, nee 
pretati Sunt “nis pees) At einidee a) = vere 
Vita’ > pio Sitar “esit seq 1 a. iat ae ea 
Ppotuit exprimim quod, ‘Gracee | dnc cum 
est dxovocbeions, NON enim potuit dici no- 
lentata; 18.6 ddpua dedopevov, 20. 30; 29. I 

In the Locutiones de Deuteronomio (Locut. in Hept 5) 
we find the LXX used to about the same extent. Compare 
Locut. de Deut. 11.3; 41. 14; 15: 6; 28: 48; 28, 54 where he 
refers to the LXX of Prov/'23.6;' Graeécws haber 
dvépt Bacxdvy; Baoxavos autem fascinus dicitur. 
286, 0335.°31. -29° whe hv-er bo) ‘“arttie.m- Gee erg 
Gieitwre) Gn tqwitatem “faedte tas = sawed 
—€St dvopycere. 32. 14. 

In the Locutiones de Iesu Nave there is only one recorded 
instance of the employment of the Septuagint, viz: 8. 18 on 


He ven de mana + wa mini ni. 2a 6:s'e:- Hl ore 
interpres Symmac hus’ “s.cut wm “agpeper 
las se ipjerhibeturk - ‘Sep twWae iat a wean 
iter pie erie Ss" secundum quos ista 
tractam mrs. qui’ *-posterint “e7es one 
minor iste t in Graeca inp wa “has ce oe 
wed (-olamrceaim®’”: “Goalie a nam in-telined 


voluerunt. This is an important passage, though the 
only one in the book in which the Septuagint is mentioned. 





255 


We learn from it that the Septuagint was the norm of authority 
for Augustine. Moreover, he informs us that here at least he 
was not acquainted first-hand with the version of Symmachus 
(Siy) mimrar chow s) pier h ibe ar) 

Similarly in the Locutiones de Iudicibus (Locut. in Hept. 
pe GOMpALe S424. tos Ao) Sie en iim); hayb: ejt 
Graecus évrpy déppe airys. 7. 12. 

Thus both in the Quaestiones and Locutiones in Hept. 
Augustine would seem to have had a copy of the LXX before 
him, and to have made frequent reference to it. He evidently 
consulted it throughout in these seven books ; and has only 
mentioned its readings where he thought them noteworthy. 

We shall observe the same use of the Septuagint version 
in Augustine’s other and much larger exegetical work—the 
Enarrationes in Psalmos. Compare Ennar. in Ps. 3.5 éyw de 
€xoipnOnv kat vrvwoa. 4. 6; 6. 33 9. 73 67. 19; 67. 41; 71. 8; 
Mie yp l. 20s Ie LOegwoOndatm in 1G rae cis Go dive i= 
beus) 2.0 Nn» evexelioe “quo di veils ty * 4m p eid iv iit,’ 
sed owernddio~w legimus quod est potius 
cLOumy DiCAGl Wedith meoTen7 sO. UeOrG), -eanwime) | Gi r/a.e cue 
PRO SH) tou m) 65S tb. Cuposh. dive rs) si astresrip, me tart 


Spumnveeen iO. Sitin i aNvaim., eb i sGomaveie iy) seo. dive ers 
fa brent, Vopyy) 1b, oa ram. Lia tine duce. re 
Met onesie weet dhl Di tial vid in te rmp rieis sq eurbu 
Bbc Gonocsap.O S it Um est) )paleeiri que tenon 
Peuutiavoe Tune. 4 a.m," e's sie: 4d cie.ned aml... 05% 
Maite srOpee nS -avivm.0; (47.8) oes Slee: tase! tout 
SHUspierh ) | Meh Taoh €,SeSi Sel pi tease Wygesk © Shige ust 
Hpiicd-d mee mela use vin ams t ul emu nti “sw pret 
me transierunt; o&Adov enim eusitey ian 


Gira.e¢.0 4° no n eioyAOov.: 92. GY 982.93 1052.2) 105.31; 
BS SCLMO Us Le itos Thos TiO iA. Ay TES. 15, (5 pibid. 15. 8; 
BES. 24n 7 LO. 2042" Me e2Oo Ae) P6520... 35! 11g. Ds l23.00% 
ae 

Augustine, according to the above citations and references, 
seems to have had the Septuagint at hand in writing his great 
commentary on the Psalms, and though he did not mention it 


256 


so frequently as we should suppose he would, still he does 
mention it enough to give us to know he could use it. 

When we turn from the three works of Augustine which 
we have been considering above to his commentary on the 
book of Job we are rather disappointed to find no reference to 
the Septuagint, and evidently no use made of that version in 
this work. This concludes our investigation of Augustine’s 
use of Greek, especially of the Septuagint, in his writings on 
the Old Testament books. Though he does not seem to have 
employed it for Job, yet from the Quaestiones in Hept. and 
the Locutiones in Hept. andthe Enarrationes in Psalmos we 
know he employed the Septuagint version. In fact he seems 
to have had it before him and to have consulted it often in the 
course of those writings. He was not only able to read it, 
but, to some extent, to use it critically and to verify or emend 
his Latin version from its text. In face of all this we cannot 
understand how Dr. Philip Schaff wrote: ‘‘But in his exe- 
getical and other works he very rarely consults the Septuagint 
or Greek Testament, and was content with the very imperfect 
Itala or the improved version of Jerome.” (Church History, 
vol. 2, p. 1oo1, footnote, and repeated in The Nicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, prolegomena p. g, footnote). 

Next we ask did Augustine make use of the New Testa- 
ment in the original Greek? We do not find any trace of the 
use of the original in the two books Quaestiones Evange- 
liorum nor in the Quaestiones septemdecim in evangelium secun- 
dum Matthaeum. Still more strange is it that the lengthy work 
In Iohannis evangelium tractatus seems to have been executed 
with very little reference to the Greek. In it (Tract. ro. 12) 
occurs the fanciful formation of the word Adam from the 
initial letters of dvarok} quod est Oriens, dies 
qwodrést (0 cei de ns, apes’ quod: ist Sem 
tentrio, pecnpfpia quod est Meri dités.<*calso 
the numerical value of the different letters found in ’Addap 
as 46, the number of years which was occupied in the build- 
ing iof the temple: In Tract.»38. 15 ‘on 3Por'i ci piiae 
of Ioh, 8) 25; he says -Principiwm me ¢reddaten 





257 


Po Grae co nam qwe -¢ hoquio dis cer nits 
quod non pio ties t/t ne Ga-time . =) WA pad 
Grd-6°C.6-s empha md min? “emer i's!” est 
principium. This cannot be said to bea good instance 
of his consulting the Greek text. A better one is found in 
Mracts 15: 4. where on thes i “hoe yniatiuls: sium of 
Fotmrma s7heisays cady i. 01c -matuG “Sum. ot 2 tio 
Goacco slam que!’ “evangeliy oy nihil “e'sit 
huius locutionis ambiguum, where he had 
evidently referred to the Greek text eis rotro yeyevynuar. In 
Tract too. 1 he does comment on the different renderings of 
the word dogdca of Ioh. 19. 14, and again in Tract. 105. 3 
on dd€acov in the Greek text of John 17. 1. Lastly, in Tract. 
£17. 2, on the wapackevxy of John 19. 14. With such trifling 
exceptions this work on John appears to have been written 
without reference to the Greek text. It is true Augustine 
may have consulted the Greek text without having thought it 
necessary to make any more remarks than those given above. 
But this is by no means probable, as surely he would have 
found, had he consulted the Greek text, some things better 
worth a remark than those which he has chosen; for example 
he did not remark upon the dyawav and ¢uAey of John 21. 15 sq. 

In addition to this we have evidence that he neglected 
the Greek text outside of the gospel of John while writing the 
wiractatus. In “Pract. 79:1. he-etves, Heb) 11, “1 as); Sit 
eitem fides: sperantium “substan tia; 
thus by sperantium, _ which is the best attested read- 
ing here, and occurs again in Tract. 95. 2, Augustine trans- 
lates, or acquiesces in the translation of, rév éAmopéevwv of the 
Greek text—an obviously incorrect rendering which he could not 
have omitted‘to notice if he had consulted the Greek. The 
vulgate more correctly renders it sperandarum 
nerum. ) In Tract; o%4 helgives profan as ver = 
bro um) in iofv iitva.t es) fev ita. for 2 Tim: 2:“16, .mis- 
translating Kxevodwrias as Kkawogwvias, and xawodwrias was read 
here but on very inferior manuscript authority. It is more 
likely that Augustine has not carefully examined the Greek 


258 


as he repeats tae same error in Sermo 299. 12; the vulgate 
renders it correctly vaniloquia. In Tract. 104. 3 he 
gives another instance of his not having examined the Greek 
text, as he writes in gloria for eis ddfory of Phils 2. 11. 
If he had consulted the Greek text he would easily have es- 
caped the difficulty which hefoundin adducunt ergo 
Tlessum adi Cavaphams in” praetontga— 
athe Italaoflohy- 185 28.— (He says "“S'ed si. Sad? (Giann- 
pham cur in praetorium? The Greek text d76 
tov Kaidda eis 70 tpaitHprov would have removed all difficulty and 
saved him the trouble of finding an explanation to suit the Latin 
words. In regard to this verse he has shown the same un- 
necessary perplexity in De consensu evangelistarum 3. 7. 28. 
The vulgate correctly renders a Caiapha. 

In the rest of Augustine’s works on the New Testament 
books there is the same lack of evidence of his employment 
of the Greek text. These works are the Expositio quarun- 
dam propositionum ex epistola ad Romanus, the incomplete 
work Epistolae ad Romanos expositio and the Expositio epis- 
tolae ad Galatas. We should have looked for evidences of an 
acquaintance with the original specially in the two last named 
works, and the absence of such is all the more striking if we 
read, for example, Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew or the 
Epistle to the Galatians, in both of which he was fully convers- 
ant with the original language. 

The same neglect to use the text of the Greek New Tes- 
tament may be seen in the work De consensu evangelistarum. 
For example in 2. 30:72'on . I n'y 1 c-em Yomiera. estan 
porta te “and? -U nasqats que) /iewm ism ape 
prium onus portabit (Galat. 6. 2, 6.5) he says, 
Nis i \On-ecr i s> hoo fh) (Sabi ay eases esse ee 
ficattomibus> acceperis,) (pmo cui dawinine 
putabisteundem sib tin ologuenmdogesse 
contrarium. If he had known the Greek it would not 
have been necessary for him to assume the words onera 
and onus here are to be taken in different senses. He 
would have found two distinct words in the Greek text: 





259 


7a Bapy (verse 2) and 70 idiov bopriov (verse 5). In his -Expos- 
itio epistulae ad Galatas, 58 and 59, he does not notice any 
difference or contradiction at all. In De consensu evange- 
listarum 3 7. 27 we have noticed his difficulty about ad 
Cdtiva pi hea, 10-~ pe aveit'olr iu m,.)tSeé. also. 3.24.65 
for his difficulty about Mat. 28. 1. 

But though Augustine in all the above named works 
shows little or no acquaintance with the Greek text, we know 
from other facts that he could and did consult it. This we 
should naturally expect him to do in the New Testament text 
when we know, as shown above, that he had a considerable 
knowledge of the Septuagint Greek, and could with a certain 
amount of facility consult that text. Augustine in a letter to 
Jerome in which he tries to dissuade him from translating 
from the Hebrew, and asks him to be satisfied with correcting 
the Septuagint text, also expresses his appreciation of Jerome’s 
new version of the gospels, thus: Proinde non par- 
Mase DiC Ow Cra ieaeSe a Ouemwis, .diey O-pse re.) tuo 
Geucomie va mrcreleivaim: (ese, Erase Cro) tp ter pune = 
Paiute teSi CxS. WG Ui) ain Praveen. oO; my tubs ujse ima 
Opitae nm SiO) se7Sit). CUM: Scr op tur iam .Gir avescya im 
Omri unke ii mows. Gp. 71.04.10: BE volsi2.243)) > shrons 
these words of Augustine himself we infer that he compared 
Jerome’s version of the gospels with the Greek original, or he 
compared at least enough of that version to pass judgment. 
He also seems while so doing to have had a judgment of his 
own in the matter. He would agree that Jerome was correct 
in; mostypoints: ((paené in onni buss nul ha. of- 
fensio est), but not absolutely all. The above cited 
words in themselves would seem to be evidence enough for 
Augustine’s ability to read, and for his actual reading of, the 
Greek of the New Testament. 

But there is more evidence yet from actual examples of 
his having used or known the Greek text. In DCD XIII. 24 
he discusses the difference between rvetua and zvoy with refer- 
ence to the Greek text of Gen. 2. 7 and of Ioh. 20. 22 to prove 
that) Lnsipi rast o Deus @ine faciem ea us 


260 


spiritum (voy) vitae _ was a different act from 
AGcipite spiritum + (wéeige)— San € ta tied 
for the same discussion he cites 1 Cor. 2. 11, Matt. 28. 19, 
John 4. 24 evidently with the knowledge of the Greek text in 
these places. In Ep. 149. 28 he notices the omission in Col. 
2. 18 of the negative in some MSS, evidently meaning Greek 
MSS. Compare also Ep. 193. 1o on different readings of 1 
Cors 152.36, quod ini plerisig te «Odie bw 
he guitar! “op amc: Gs Pieis wr Sie ma Sa1 ys 4 Le Pie 
qinsoid sneoin mad is be eidiate-e's ‘chi athe nite ie eaminpers 
dormiemus.’ In DCD XX. 19 he approves of the ren- 
derins in. tem plum Dei ‘ratherthan in! temple 
Dern} pinve: Thess. /23/4.. Sie Wit) nme Ge 7 aterciomseisae 
Here he had consulted the Greek text eis rév vadv rod Oeot. In 
Quaest. in Ex. 51 he shows a familiarity with the words of the 
Greek text of the New Testament; has auwtemod vert 
“pte ge nv, 6s) TEeavti nents vine theyrip trceswen Chneaas 
yress GraAeei voCa Mme, Owae 1n le va nici 
Ve. Gah Coe dt oomvers, © Caup pre leamutrdane Again in 
Quaest. in Ex. 114 when commenting on the rendering of 
aisOyoews in Ex. 28. 3) he Says 1)biij) (ice. HMebr. Gg: 24) 
emi iin. \qaicond p:.G-si1 t,t. s.emsr. si? | MGirrateciurs 
habet  saic@yos, the Greek word im “Heb: 5.0514 “beme 
aicOyrnpia. In Quaest. in Levit. 20 he writes apostolus 
autem: (u.bi dict. 0% Sa apariaie Oxe, caulpwanecas 
fee U Tat ie homo in aliquo dredhisevtior ss 
Tmapamropar. Graecus habet, which is the word in 
the Greek text of Galat. 6. 1. He was acquainted with the 
Greek text of Eph. 5. 27 as we learn from Quaest. in Levit. 
AGS aF OS'S 1e titer gow Pq avord) card, sola, sonia = 
Mei) Jai tine omiAa| (dice res Vow O =e NaeeoRe 
US US, 2st jJapostolus wbhtisant We verpolhesmar 
“Noo a chyaprem tem an aie alam ha) ben eee 
In Quaest. in Deut. 39 while commenting on the rov rovnpov 
of Deut. 24. 7 he recalls the similar expression in 1 Cor. 5. 13 
auferte meaolhum ex. vo Das sipsa ker) Ole 
Graecwus habet ‘rov wovypov .: .. Nec? at & ire 





261 


mavypov, id est. “hoe malignum,’ sed tov 
Zopypoy = Quod este “hune maliignum.’ In 
Ennar, in Ps. 118 sermo 15. 8 (verse 56) on iustitias 
tuas €xquisivi he quotes'from Rom. 10.3 igno- 
rantes Dei iustitiam _ and then draws a distinc- 
tion between d&caootvas and dikawpara, which latter word 
occurs in the verse (56) on which he is commenting, the 
former in the Greek text of Rom. 10. 3. He must therefore 
have been familiar with the Greek of Rom. to. 3. 

Compare also Contra Faustum Manichaeum 11.4 qui 
iwe les CS) ex s. SHeimiiIniy.e oD) aw ids e.¢ @ n.d>ucm 
Cia) heme es 0) = Qudidcast ou gan (iin ‘e-on weariia t 
eodicum Pr eto tars cig Bt sa wyemnit ms) > in 
quit. b.ais-d-a. mot bar indss, (6 x etm p la ti biws. Mon 
me gict wer) ota erase iisre dy [ona bw Si. 6 er Se min, € 
Wiaavsivdi.. icra, Gra ere e* fave thins) ’y hath ea m t 5 
mae cre) (h- Ginls aed — wielr: bua, sed ,a.d- semi tiem 
fim iMtranstenne voluit dicendo) ‘natum?s 
atin ws simite copies’.  dleré again he has consulted 
the Greek text (Rom. 1. 3) Tod yevoévou ék oréppatos AaBid Kara 
oapka, 

In an epistle to Paulinus he criticises the translation of the 
Greck of 2 Vink 24m Ase Cun dan (Graeéeuwm enim 
kag usw im (da s.cermen- dia saints) n am anos = 
Sie Biche Gly pimie t €.S¢ ev ix) Sresp.e Ea Unrthi que 
SeeCbielat Creme: | ete Ss C1 eniiewn transi ter we 


Cae Fn bin eo Syed?) tpt ob se oO kqud'd “a 
Mob invowveisie Sob secre ntllen Grae:ee dixit 
mapakaA®; pro eo veto quod set tel nears: 


we ctere fh awet te bist Grate nies7 alle: pros wit 
deyoes (Ep. 149. 2. 17; Compare also ibid. 13. 14). 

IneSeEmMo neo-55-0n “Gqilotiidie m0 rior. per 
westwam ,gloeriam of «Cor, 15.031 he comments: 


Pie ticOt CES. binroms Aq uarvs 1 ese ait > pet 
MESttanm (Sl Onmilam miorionr ~ i quasi vestra 
elerial dre Ri wert PmIOr dj. te CAM Die Wi tae 


tem G raie cows sermo dit sso l vil t= In- 


262 


Spi citar im sepi's.tioila sG er a.e Ca Set ean mente 
tur Dba) Lira tio) sq Wave? “ho: n-siersit a nb weer 
vy THV bweTepav Kabxnow. Ni tov deov ubi Graecus dix- 
et Gite tier ait. Onno tad e ac diirease (Ga aoeiemes 
et. q wir -Gitia ‘6 Cle =) Olsbws) P wipro Geers Equa medre 
GVe1t) mproyvibeoy iF ast o els toy pierre eam mae 

In Sermo 169. 1 he shows that he was familiar with the 
different readings 6eod and Oe in the Greek text of Phil. 3. 3 
and gave his preference to the former reading: qui spiri- 


tai Deu S€ir wis ¢ Scio pslse@ orsiqyave 
COAG E-e4S htasbye.r7e “qi Sip hr teu Dxeto 
Sires Vv Weil es a QO ula n tim. Saad tem 4-nysap micrermse 


potuimus plumes iGrine ct 9 hio-e iia Dene 
MQ at Sp Orta Den jes earn iamnuasse 

In De sermone Domini in monte 1. 9. 22 he gives qui 
irasicitmr fratrd =su 0 4s.im eb oclamistae (eae 
but in Retract. 1. 19. he has changed his mind and writes 
GQ Ui)? (iP ars Cisne) Aiea suo. Codices 
G rave C1.9n Om iba brent! (ise Dies cys: 

He was familiar with the question as to év to gavepa in the 
Greek text of Matt. 6. 4, for in De sermone Domini in monte 
2.2. 9 he-says:s « muda 9 ati nia Sceixce mpl aaa 
siiciha bent Et Pia tek, Vea wisl qin es wadden 
im!) abs condita)” ce did) iti bi, eepiaieamice 
seid qudda)- in Gw ae c tis 'q- wale Spi tioniaes ew 
non “Unwien1m uss eipial ami--) niom™ Sp tiara = 
im ws shinjc evsisie sakvqwid Sdiiss e rend am: 

But Augustine did not always consult the original text. 
Had he done so he would not have fallen into some errors of 
which he is guilty, nor would he have laid undue stress on the 
Latin versions of different texts. | For example on John 1g, 
34. (In Ioh: -evang. tracts reo, 2)i) a naisy Smad 
latnueeadealatans ) exis Capre rw ites he says 
Vigil-am ti, wiew bie Wewia nied 1s tay a Sia seessae 
utinon :diceret? Pats “enuse | peri s sae 
ant) ova Dayeircany 1 ae, Sega Tle ga er rere 
‘aperuit.’ Augustine would not have thus emphasized 





Ey ene 


263 


‘aperuit’ if he had only consulted the original where he 
would have found evvfev, for which ‘percussit’ would 
have been a more correct rendering, though it would not fully 
express the original. It is not at all probable that here Augus- 
tine examined the Greek text and found jvogev which is indeed 
given by one MS. | 

From Augustine’s own statement cited above, and from 
the examples of his familiarity with the Greek text here given, 
we conclude that he was to a certain extent conversant with 
the original text of the New Testament ; or at least he could 
evidently without much difficulty consult a text where he 
thought it necessary, and could thereby correct or confirm his 
Itala version. Had we no examples whatever for his having 
gone to the original in the New Testament, still we should 
conclude from his ability to examine the Septuagint that he could 
make use of the Greek text of the New Testament, and in ad- 
dition to this presumption we have the positive evidence just 
cited. 

4. Fourth, we turn next to Augustine’s use of Greek in 
his controversial writings. In these, too, we shall find that he 
has a limited, but fairly accurate, working knowledge of that 
language which serves him in time of need. 

Compare Contra Cresconium Donatistam 1. 13. 16 sq., 
where he discusses the meaning of duadextixy. In ibid 14. 17 
heisays -N-o mien. quippe Graecum est dia- 
lectica q@wa.er7 “si WSiuss a Gimalgre erie i 
omits se, teatin ed is patartiorivar -v ociairie= 
fo reset sont ar meM apt ca mi) lit the natu am 
Bata nets, Wino ae sutra ssqaue: (d occ tics 's 4m i 
Aor Per leanveece Uinta (eo. eCity neoneiemy. vale lhit tern is 
dien.o mM ineart av e's ty ora mimati.ca-q won iam 
Graece- Yeappers Letter ae dicuntwr, ) sine 
ay dii-sep uh taro me, “di alice e.t Pca; ¢ nO mre Ny (a,e:< 
Ge pint; quoniam disputatio Grima eice 
diadoy» vel ddAces appellatur. In ibid 14. 18 
rabes tne hoc ceo dem» Lies tit mio.n to, quod 
ade. actibus agostolorum commem ora Vt; 


264 


(Acts 17. 17) where deAgyero occurs. He also cites Acts 20. 
9 (duareyouévov), Ps. 103. 34 (dadoyy) and Is. 1. 18 (SueAeyyOapev) 
and adds et mul tis aliis divinarum 
Seripturarum locis léegeé ubi inven eris 
Hoe verbum et inspice codices Graccos 


in eisdem testi m Onis Sanctarum 
Seri p tur enum “etovadiebis  wnrdemsatel a pe 
pellata.dialectica. Augustine had evidently ex- 


amined all such passages himself in the original in order to re- 
fute his adversary; and he relied on his knowledge of Greek, 
whether extensive or inconsiderable, in doing so. 

Contra Gaudentium Donatistam 1. 5. 6, Quod 
enim quidam i Mevece Fyprrrertradae Sant} 
[sia pw'en tis st mum Vom mp tsm) ablesititawc ume, 
‘pin den tis/simium’) pots (Giraecivemdiees 
hab einit 5. tandce. Pin Latinam linguam 
seriptura illa trans lata ('6st2 Having here 
(Gen. 3. 1) examined the LXX he found dpovysératos and thus 
spoke with authority. 

Compare Contra litteras Petiliani 2. 38. 91, where he states 
his contention without hesitation, Et ego quidem 
Graecac lin @wa ce! I pie oe platum asic car Giue 
Sim (ef pmorpre> snubs ine iP aha meneame 
pudenter di¢o -me 1 0'ss © cle non esse 
“ad niu nt * -s@di “totum £)) Gt \ kal’ GXor® 4 Steerumn- 
dum totum.’  Sucha statement as this, it is true, en- 
tailed only a very limited knowledge. 

In Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas 5. 5 
Gstte in) 1 emnlem a eitier niin” che says Nec 
moy ere diebDeteut “hoe loiee “areticam aan, 
pro “diuturno* acerpian us # qirody alias 
sofriptum est “Ine acitidrn am vet (me sacs 


Ctihumsaeeuli’ Latianus) qmip pier tater. 
pres inoluirt! dicerie® “an” (eter na meee 
im .aegternum “aetéerni.: © ‘Sed’ quontiam 


id) quod Saier Graece dicitur tet “sacar: 
lime’ -ét. °Hetern on” Gn teripe et ara eporese 





265 


commands. Wis jal it iaditerpre tes. trans til - 


erwin of in Siae.c, wlim Yet’ «in saeculum 
Save Cv) Laie Sead “non “hrote > dite ttm «st aibu 
adinetum fest “ites in ion éim-ae te rn u ms’ 


Non enim) dictum’ est» «aidéva sed -aidviorv 
aauverd) Sisime as Vs aeculo  declinatu m” esisreit 
As.ane cu hare?’ Tratiinee Gi eretr ert at non 
SHAVEVLUG Maite sate. 

But the best examples of Augustine’s controversial em- 
ployment of Greek occur in the work Contra Iulianum Pela- 
gianum 1. 6. 22. Here Augustine is discussing the question 
of infant baptism against Julian, who had cited the words of 
John Chrysostom, and by his own interpretation had tried to 
make them teach his view. Augustine consulted the words of 
Chrysostom and pointed out the incorrectness of Julian’s 
efansiation.; © oO 1 psa /v er bia), %G ra e7e'al “qiulae 
a Tohanne dicta sunt ponam _ Aca ovro kat 
Ta TaLola Barrilopev KAaLTOL GpapTymara ovx €XovTa, quo d EFSet 
Rvacto me“ Ledve ove tt Riaurt.amote's)’ Iba pit ezsaema ss 
Gp aseepleCccra tar Jno che be ntee sl Veidkes 
SG iGLb te 40) m oa) Dine Om divest wim exes Sye. \prave vrs 
ods (1 ROMs Cro din Gud a ta0-S2) SeysuS\e = > pve ‘leases 
SHiaueEe preresCra tiuSy. 7. eis end “dneoi ay haben ea perce. 
Cudvinds sei toe. Picogien (eprvoxp tava’ ent nulla 
contentio est. And again against the same oppon- 
ent, ibid. m6, 26. she-says' Ou tdi fem iim ape ft i us 
Ctra 4 aGiuiOdd Sieh e danse th * Viernuct Js emer! 
Cohamiesttaism ce tepid Le rms nose Ca wt Lom albus 


LEV Cw te gakSula Wwestvous quas GO 1-S_G bps vt 
Avdiaray a niives tage igus © 0 belavonact 10 m iis \-orsi- 
i<e vd. ts spucrercia tals) envoIs tT irs, teem urs! (acc re = 
Wits Acweiesct wnies biome nem “roy fad & Cat ho- 
hircaenehta le ridat am. /eite cen urda em t-ejme, Gdtis- 
fine west em dce Daeyagm pattern (chir o- 
Soap ou Ovds ) bua ee ds. hai ium. eno bis © 2 a 
finayersat Cy 5c) Dap Bags dre binctatis quorum per 


Dos tina ip e¢cicuastca’ fem s Wa ce pew tt? eACwas 


266 


quid par Valais. )ii- bea pitas im io See ered 
G.Wi. sn-0 num, .p ro p ria die bat a. Aeon ae 


Titi tise nsec: # atra an ean) a pa tier nso. ¥ feshititrtor 
grapho immumnes esse potuernunt ? 
Vier D-a 4, q: Uiispipre ~ LEMSES. Salo mt 4 a tre sripinte st cites 


sic Leguntur in Graeco:, Epyeraveret o Xporos, 
= rd an , a ov 4 c >? ‘ > a XN 
etpev TGV xXELpOypadov waTpwMov oO TL eypadey 6 “Addy: exelvos THY 


apxiv eionyayev TOU xpelovs, Huets Tov daverrpov HiEnoapey Tals 


petayevertepas duaptias, Quae verbum e verbo 
invte.r pire ttuar tian) Suitce masyey hyaibsennyte: Vive met 
semel Crhiras t.07s 3 i AV eeiait nostrum 
chi 50:¢-Tia phim) pa tier nium) yqiujosd! “sie ims 
Avid xaim, Dl dbe se ane balan dine pa nding pect eerie 
nos) fen ws Nass mus “pos tie Pio rib tse speeiee 
C.atiis:7 . Nowmequiid ve-omitie mrtitiss mie diene 


’ 


‘pia tern am ich Lproe ra phium >> nitsi addenet: 
SAAy.OAS shalt Tee 

Though Augustine was able in these two passages to ex- 
amine the original for the purposes of controversy, we should 
not assume that therefore he could read any or all of the 
Greek fathers. Some considerations mentioned above forbid 
us to think he could do so; besides the Greek in both of 
these passages happens to be plain and easy, so as to cause no 
difficulty to one who possessed only a very limited reading 
knowledge. 

5. Fifth, a few other facts remain to be considered. In 
Conf. 4--'16. 28 “Augustine. “writes “Et- quid “mathe 


pit o.:dienr alte —qeuord annos natus fé-rmre 
Vane ts, = ae m ine = a-anais’) “msea.ss ayers 
Siémt= A ris totelt ean iqiutate d aime sqrtda cea 
pela nit dercre um categorias — quarum 


no Mime," cum eas rirtetor “Car tha aime 
Sais, Magis ters me uss “bitecase by onsen 
pantibus © Onm\m, emo fat ete © aal-tie aceies 
doct. hiasbebantur tam quam “ime ares cao 
quid ‘magnum: et “di vind a eso sipremestars 
inhiabam-—legi-eas solus et" in rellcus: 





267 


@©f courses 2 these patel Se tror tel lui era quaedam 
were neither Aristotle’s work nor written in Greek. 
Decem categoriae isnot the name of any genuine 
work of Aristotle. This pseudo-Aristotelian production was 
not written in Greek, else Augustine would hardly have read 
it, andit was, infact, a Latin book. Moreover, he saysit came 
into his hands when he was almost twenty years of age—at 
which age, so far as we can make out, his knowledge of Greek 
was altogether inadequate to read sucha philosophical treatise ; 
or indeed a treatise of any kind, and it may be doubted 
whether his knowledge of Greek in later years would have 
been sufficient to ensure his reading Greek philosophical works. 

In regard to Augustine’s use of Epiphanius, we cannot be 
quite certain whether he read him in Greek or through a 
version. Epiphanius was styled wevrdy\wooos from his knowl- 
edge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac and Egyptian ; but his 
Panarion on heresies and his anakephalaiosis of the same were 
both written in Greek. Augustine describes his work in the 
introduction to De Haeresibus,, (BE. VIL. 23:) -Noster 
Peewic OF vapid) pha ampiniosi Caynpi rd WS: 4 VE°pal Socio pH st, 
PDE tince Unvoune dont eet. vayama weds?) (re DUS) cnx 


Emp, t's, die ore £.O1g 4 nota hae € Sa puas 
io. giein's sexx “lish ros et ia m iip se. crowns. ri. p- 
Shee ee Shit Seto th i-elayl)) Nate ast 1:0 nse”. mse mM Ota NS 
Onn nina, rnnelelas > “dii.sipeutta. tro nye “cardi vied sus 
ant Stit ate ma spr io Wie mel fracte4 i de Cre: ret aan Sa: 
Pemcimesersramuie es unt shi sabe lin et sain 
tiene eC duise taynytyul r,) nese” 1 prs ee rit) no si- 
tapas .2 Fi ypeul ico wae geqra bused) am | iaiib ris 
orm. citi dome com parandus. Augustine 


mentions him in several places in the De Haeresibus, (10. 22. 
B25 Al. 42. 43:45:40, 50. 512.57. 81). From) this we would 
infer that Augustine consulted Epiphanius, either in the origi- 
nal or in a version, in his composition of the De Haeresibus. 
He speaks of him again ina letter to Quodvultdeus (Ep. 222) 
Scam Past t eunves eid a MiG. tra eC. e™ ne pis Cory US 
Gy pt ids Eph nis ye. wtr1u.s-q we 


268 


teat p-0 rs, — fae recess Goslimisetesars octo- 
ginta complexus €sit.-4) cum Epp hae 
iam Phibastri©e do et rote m pile nem ngs 

SWide ergo nie forte lt bieaem7 Saciewss 
Hipiphaniit tibas mttiexr esd eb eam sip sae 
enim arbitrof!) Phawlastrio- ‘doeiatas shine 
Loeutum, “quer possit @pud  Cactiha aanem 


in. Leattrneam, ai aecuraim Vert) gia mdkipags 
at'q abe -c-0'm mro' dt Sr, itt) prot cuss: pata syeers 
nobis quod quaeris.  Fromthese words it seems 


natural to infer that there did not exist a Latin version of the 
Panarion or the epitome of the Panarion which Augustine 
might consult. Yet he seems to be familiar with the contents 
of Epiphanius’ work on heresies. It seems probable then that 
Augustine read the epitome of the Panarion in Greek ; but of 
this we cannot be certain. 

In regard to Plotinus and Porphyry there can hardly be 
any question that he did not read them in the original. He 
" was familiar with both these authors and quotes from them. 
In DCD XIX. 23 he gives a quotation from the ék Aoylwy 


dirtocodias of Porphyry, ut i pysi airs awiesrgva: enirds 
quem adm oduim | €2) (Giraeca, pla neal eae 
Patinam “rite ip re tata © issu mite pres acmre 


In these words Augustine is not referring to his own transla- 
tion of the passage, but gives it from some version of Por- 
phyry which he had before him. He does not, it is true, 
mention the name of any author of a version either of Por- 
phyry or of Plotinus, though so thoroughly conversant with 
the writings of these two Platonists. Dr. Philip Schaff (Saint 
Augustin, Melanchthon, Neander, N. Y., 1886, p. 88) says: 
‘¢He probably read Plotinus and Porphyry in the original.” 
But from the extent of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek, 
which we have shown above, and from the limited use he made 
of Greek, it is unlikely that he should have read either Por- 
phyry or Plotinus in the original. His knowledge of both was 
entirely through Latin versions. While there is absolute lack 
of evidence that Augustine read Plato in the original, while he 


269 


made so comparatively limited use of the LXX, while he seems 
to have preferred translations on all occasions, while he did 
. not consider himself equal to the task of reading the Greek 
fathers on the subject of the Trinity, would he, in all proba- 
bility, be able to read the philosophic writings of Porphyry 
and Plotinus? We do not think so, but believe, as stated 
above (p. 239), that both Porphyry and Plotinus must be re- 
ferred'to the, quos dam “libros (latonicorum 
Givos oN lct oO min us Tq.uo nd am mhetor ur bis 
ReomMdedieee a. on. Leatiin am, lingam trans 
Palluluins Sve,t pony Conk. e..2..09: 

What does Augustine mean by the words of sermo 225. 3. 
a sadeintantes: —§nveni te > Latinuwm,. Eati= 
Nyda ee tvigD ale. SD Om €or on..d) tim est) vier bum... 
SauMraguet evn Gatdne CausSiuwe Ss sve SG rae.c @) (ti bit 
Wovqmani dsc jbsern eumverts op irolive mre a Gast e" (Vv € t= 
bum Graecum? Does this mean that Augustine here 
implies that he could speak Greek to the children if they were 
Greek? Hes referring simply to the propriety of speaking 
Latin to Latin children, telling them that in the same way if 
they were Greeks, he ought .(deberem) to. speak 
Greek to them, without hinting whether he himself understood 
Greek enough to speak it. 

Having thus completed our examination of the works of 
Augustine with a view to discover the extent of his knowledge of 
Greek, we have seen that he himself claims to have known 
very little about Greek, that on all occasions he seems to have 
preferred a Latin version of a Greek author, that he did not 
consider his knowledge of Greek extensive enough to make a 
large reading acquaintance with original writings of the Greek 
fathers, that he did not read even his favorite Platon- 
ists in the original, that he sometimes made mistakes in 
his use of Greek. On the other hand we have found 
that there is a large number of single Greek words and 
Greek phrases in his works, that he could with a con- 
siderable amount of precision distinguish between Greek 
synonyms—nearly all of them technical terms, that he was 


270 


by no means ignorant of the derivation of Greek words, that 
he was conversant with and could consult for the simpler and 
primary critical and exegetical purposes the Septuagint ver- 
sion, or at least portions of it-—the Heptateuch and Psalms, 
that from the LXX he could confirm or correct the Itala; that 
he knew something of the original language of the New Tes- 
tament—though apparently not tothe same extent as that of the 
Septuagint; that from the New Testament Greek text he occas- 
ionally ventured to correct his Latin version; that for contro- 
versial purposes he regarded his knowledge of Greek as sufficient 
to presume upon it in order to confute his opponent; that he 
perhaps read the epitome of the Greek work of Epiphanius 
on heresies in the original. 

In his commentary on Job he seems not to have consulted 
the LXX, and in his works on the New Testament we are disap- 
pointed to find so little use made of the Greek text. 

After all the evidence given above, it would be very far 
from the truth to assert Augustine knew little or nothing about 
Greek. In his early days this may have been so. But Augus- 
tine later on applied himself to the study, and no doubta 
man of his earnest temperament would spare no efforts to 
master that language for practical purposes. We may say 
then that Augustine’s knowledge of Greek was different at 
different times, or rather that it increased with his years and 
his use of it. Vhat he was not ignorant of the advantages 
and value of such a study we may see from De doctrina Chris- 
tiana:2.. 13.19: On a papa Te ty a(S emiate Me lea paca 
in -eaclin gua Wns piciatunr i am) ine eerr 
Pretan tir. tp ler uw mig ne fay Ss ents arae ee 
tonis \deviuws “aber fat 1 te rp fe sr su eno 
Sit doctirssi muss sat tne 1 ami eae 
ih ex-aqui Dus in * Qe astm oscab par ee 
pEefryeRit petenda Cogn tet 6 cst ese disc 
ibid. 2. (4. 21 and 2-15. 22°(ad ttn.) yb a tai eee 
we Cod 1 ce's ) Vieiberns lies trace nile 
necesse fuerit,  Graecorum) ave to m- 
tate emendan'di sunt... fibres wero 


271 


Mowe estament: Si quid tn Latinais 
Wwe. cma D ws emt ib ae. . Gracers ced er eé 
Op OLLren ein on GC mbit im Est, et) maxi me 
Cid -2prairecelesvas’ doctiores “et! dita 
Men trores Leper run tu fe. 


We cannot, therefore, limit Augustine throughout his 
after life to the little acquaintance with Greek of his school 
days. The disgust for the study of Greek arising out of the 
bad method employed by his teacher evidently did not con- 
tinue. 


Clausen’s examination of Augustine’s writings with a view 
to determine his knowledge of Greek was not sufficiently com- 
prehensive, and some important passages he has failed to note. 


He concludes his investigation thus: In his ob- 
Sei vad Si peor rieven dirs q wey sia platens 
admodum dvs "cle S Stea71'sr, Avi us ttn am 
Werwm, de liiciter assieie mt wm esse n elim 
Eee hid. or aseh Gpuilaime Mita net) Jsvt (a aaaed 
WalrclierOn: aie sat ut Le iar us Migin ee ucane 


Ceacee a craic awe bieate ut! Tes) er amamncas- 
tine use be ne, “e-dioc t usiaie ties u-b triliis )werbo- 


Gen meine aera tO: Tt) “Elk ies tim an dius”. siti tAt 
Pediner tamnrem: pea tet eon mit iome mi! ha nc, 
quae ultra ee mie mtd Fitieouave non 
peo dears) Satu) lo “mo do Sil thee Cert e€ ad 


ios GaGa exc ors née dum ero's) “qua dt a= 
Wem HO sLaeriaremils tie as leon seri ptt ) oS wat t, 
intelligendos. (Aurelius Augustinus Hipp. Sacrae 
scripturae Interpres p. 39). The latter part of this conclusion 
is too strong, even against Augustine’s limited knowledge of 
Greek. Such an opinion as that of Clausen is at variance 
with the facts which have been given above. Augustine’s 
knowledge of Greek ad certainly extend ultra ele- 
menta linguae_ and Clausen’s other statement 
Pao. modo sutiicere ad libros Graeco's 
medwme cos quam diaglecto Hellenistica 


272 


COMSETL Pt) Sunt Yen tel) iovensdso Ss. wise also 
equally erroneous. 


Reuter (Augustinische Studien. Gotha 1887. pp. 170-182) 
has given the question of the extent of Augustine’s knowledge 
of Greek a fuller and better treatment than Clausen, though 
he has not exhausted the material. He has taken different 
passages from those given by Clausen and collected other evi- 
dence as he says: ‘‘ Die Stellen, welche er zu diesem Behufe 
gesammelt hat, sind andere als diejenigen, welche ich gefun- 
den habe. Beide Sammlungen kénnen einander erganzen.” 
(p. 171, footnote 2). His conclusions are fairer and more 
liberal to Augustine’s knowledge of Greek: ‘*‘Er war jeden- 
falls imstande, nicht bloss Worter, sondern atch ganze Satze 
zu verstehen, wenn auch nicht ohne Anstrengung, nicht ohne 
in Irrungen zu geraten, nicht ohne Aufwand von Zeit. Um 
diesen sich zu ersparen, griff er offenbar fiir gew6hnlich zu 
einer lateinischen Version, wenn diese vorhanden, ein Exemp- 
lar derselben ihm zuginglich war. In Fallen aber, wo er in 
dieser Unverstindliches oder Anstéssiges fand, verglich er 
den griechischen Urtext. Ich bezweifle somit duichaus 
nicht, dass er fahig gewesen ware, wenn auch mit Miihe, ein 
vollstindiges griechisches Buch auszulegen, falls damit ein 
dringendes persénliches Bediirfnis zu stillen ware” (p. 178- 
179). The facts given above bear out these statements of 
Reuter. He has arrived at a conclusion which I consider cor- 
rect and well supported, though he has not exhausted all the 
evidence and has omitted to mention some important notices 
in the writings of Augustine relevant to the subject. 


In finding the extent of Augustine’s acquaintance with 
Greek I have attempted to collect every important statement 
of his own in regard to Greek and every use of Greek—the 
most important of which have been given above—to be found in 
the Confessions, in the City of God, in all his exegetical and 
controversial works and in the De Trinitate, De doctrina Christi- 
ana, De sermone Dominiin monte, De haeresibus, De consensu 
evangelistarum, Retractationes, Sermones and Epistulae. 


273 


In conclusion, this investigation into the data, from which 
a true estimate of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek may be 
gained, does not by any means warrant us in concluding that 
the great North African father had a mere elementary knowl- 
edge of Greek, confined only to the school rudiments and to 
an acquaintance with a few words and derivations and pas- 
sages. His knowledge of Greek was imperfect, limited and 
incomplete, but cannot be described as merely elementary: it 
was altogether less than his ability to use it; his method of 
employing it was more perfect than his knowledge of it was 
extensive. Besides we have reason to believe that he 
could have made more use of his Greek than he did. The 
fact that he used the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Hepta- 
teuchum and also in the Locutiones and more or less in the 
Enarrationes in Psalmos proves that he could also have con- 
sulted it throughout on the book of Job if he had cared to do 
so. And we may gather from the few examples of his em- 
ployment of the Greek text of the New Testament that he 
could have used it more extensively if he had felt so inclined. 
The fact that Augustine could have done so, but has not done 
so, leads to conclude that his knowledge of Greek was not 
so extensive that he could use it with ease; but he 
has given usabundant examples of having called his knowl- 
edge of Greek into frequent service, so that we cannot say it 
amounted to little. 


On the other hand we may not exaggerate his knowledge 
of Greek. While we learn from his exegetical and contro- 
versial works that he had a considerable knowledge, the fact 
that he did not employ Greek more, especially in the former 
class of works, shows that his Greek was not very exten- 
sive. 


This is further borne out by the consideration that Au- 
gustine’s serviceable Greek knowledge appears to have been 
limited entirely to Biblical and Patristic Greek. His largest 
field in Greek learning was the Greek of the Septuagint, next in 
order comes his knowledge of the Greek of the New Testament, 
and finally, but a very small amount of Patristic Greek. Of 
the Greek classics he was almost entirely ignorant and did 
not consult any of them in the original. 


SOME THESES. 





I. New or hitherto unnoticed fragments :-— 





A. Add to the fragments of Cicero (De Fato) :— 


(2) DED Vieg e(pnit93:-32),) mob ishertei Ilusds re ome 
mentum dey 1.) at “20 tay eg ond aie 
Siponmdrs s<¢{ tee rapa) Neier eae 
eae Sato mie”, Ht hi eb atti an ttn dea ese 
Figulas appellatas est: “Dim (eutm 
fr oOtam, © fiw vail iia has prostice 
ih OMT Stils Sie fi Wem Ter ledant te i bila sihbeies 
nme rio) die: sa tira mieinit fo) iran ep team 
uno .e€1 us) 1.0:c:o;.'s Gmina cele nate 
pe Peli sisi t= eden ntdier ain y enantiomers 
Sig na, Qitiac fi wer ata esis Wem 
m0. t.U ,) .2.Oml) pace voo © int em veanliliom mim 
rottia-e Gohl tu S e.xtie and taste oe aicaraia 
biact (S.e3 et seat a ee Rane epee 
citate "case lt) we tice ms.) tales ip eee 
alterum tanta celeritate sniasicae 
tur 5 our an ta.) cota: ebaesmrp snes {pies 
CU'sisa., in) sca € 14a! ‘sip-atito pil wre 


est -- Me ne Salt, tng Wit. Sega 
- cunque dissimililima perhibpem pes 
in moribus casi Di s.g-a%e gemi- 


HNVOst Um 


(2) DCD V. 5 (p. 197: (23), 2 bard a ont mais 
pracdicatur, qo d 7 qiuabam, isan 
ie ns h-o tam, 64-6 est, sg eee 
ore concumbere ty suade. Griwoem 
Mit ab ipl-e ny VS earrem.en, 


275 


B. Editors of Cicero’s works have overlooked the frag- 
ment expressly attributed to Cicero by Augustine in 
DEC DAV INS 16) (p=.3405-5),<0 0 Ody share pest i f- 
CLeees Ceuscama tid Gauce Gd aetr ina, fr e- 
Cl Sy ear ine tied Me vat as it er. foals, «t ba nS 
Peteredi« plesk i ib en tur, (no Me nie, ta da'or- 
(ee chipm etalk wm lish oid") Yes tayo ain) Orr = 
iia nye Geidhs Sivan Ss leo tsb us), Cree re 
© om memo ria t Susesie  .e1Onmus (Cate 1 pit urns 
Etiam lard Ui neOlGus ie Cer tt 1S Wop pil ic 1m 
70.0, St It ust um. 


c. Add to the hitherto acknowledged fragments of Varro, 
De Rebus Divinis (book 16 De diis_ selectis): 
DED AN serer@oct59..20),) €_u 1 .(Vestae)” PF hoo e te- 
mcs eudignnewim:» dia b.asmart, “dee “prrio sat 1 t)— 


Ei-ornee fot leat Wl on aA iat eG) a) tila eras 
Uetlekt, Geek enti tee Vl tid Se 


II. So far as the testimony of Augustine’s writings is con- 
cerned, his attitude to the fall of Rome and the state 
of the Roman empire of his day was one neither of 
intense and deeply patriotic feeling, nor of heartless 
indifference, though nearer to the latter than 
to the former. To say the least he appears 
surprisingly calm in the face of so terrible a 
calamity. Augustine’s pride in Rome was centered 
in her achievements of the fast, not in her present, 
He was more of a Christian than a Roman. 


III. Augustine sometimes has a way of disguising or referring 
to particular authorities by general or indefinite plural 
expressions, €9., DCDII.22(p; $3. 22) see u n- 
dims Gone  awmetores, doctiss1- 
mos) stor Sallust. DCD i. 23 i(p. 66.28). co's 
Guiinserrpy sen unmet > DCD IM, 31 (pir44. 40), 
a pid, eons: <(Ps.144534)) ssicir pS ein wn t 5 (p: 
tc 5) litwectts mandayerunt, for Livy. 


276 


DCP Th 15 (p. 2165 44) 5 q-u7l da maasrean p.- 
tores > DCD Vi5"(p197."13)\ea no nin ae 
fis: DCD V../20.{p. 235-16); pha Pojs:oupiha ter 
Cicero. DCD Iiilx2o (p:128.17)) 9 his tg uw oqune 
fatten ti'b.u s “for Eloras,.* DEDMIVe Te, TV 245 
ingutant:, DCD IVE 26)."a° “dioie t4°s)s ames 
DCD Vil. oF 1 nig wien nt “for Varro. eUeCD Vike 
i4, in quiwu nt ‘for Apuleius: «~DED IX. x (p: 368: 
17) fateantur for Lactantius. It should be 
noticed, however, that in such instances Augustine 
uses these plurals also in a kind of generic sense. 
He means the particular writers whom he has in 
mind to stand as representatives of the pagans gen- 
erally. 


IV. On the testimony of Augustine’s works he had a limited 
working knowledge of biblical Greek, a very slight 
working knowledge of patristic Greek and apparently 
no working knowledge of classical Greek. 


V. The lost Hortensius of Cicero must be regarded as one of 
Augustine’s chief literary authorities for the history 
of philosophy. 


VI. Augustine alone has preserved for us the information of 
the sack of Nola by the Goths after that of Rome in 
410. 


VII. Note the following mistakes in facts in the first ten 

books of the City of God: 
A. Proved mistakes. 
1, DCD 2, be amt Vet Vp mod est a ue 

aliquem ducem. barbax or um (pr wer 
Ce piss ec. Mt o-i Tl Pup tO 9x0 pup deo weaiielee 
lus Périnret.iwtr, qi. aro aon eed 
illo tem plo fLuissSet Im vemt ise easee 


note p. 5. 30.) 


2. 


277 


De pples C.a UG, cSt CoUGE scribit Sal- 


lustius. (See note p. 9. 31-) 


3. 


Io. 


Il. 


12. 


13 


DCD I. 34, Romulus et Remus .4)S.y - 
lum s<Gonustiuuisse » perhiben tur. 
(See note p. 50. 31.) 


DED, IE, 116, n,an, ta.men perhibetur 


easdiem,leges 4 numinibus secep: 
isse. (See note p. 72. 9.) 


DED, He wy, .decem ) amilibus aeris 


damnaretur. (Seenotep. 73. 21.) 


DED ae 230 Me te llus™.*.~."- qui habuit 


quingue | filios consulares. (See 
note p. 86. 11.) 


- DCD ik adulteras autem feminas, 


quamvis aliqua damnatione, nul- 
la tamen’ morte” plectebant. (See 
note p. 102, 11:) 


WED IL 13, ipso iaterfecto we maior 
deus esset regnum solws obtin- 
uit. (See note p. 112. 17.) 

DGbiiiieze, nam etiam Sl Olu 2 
davweripus, a non mu likis pas baspes- 
hibetur. (See note p. 130. 135) 

PED V1, L.. Vakerium qui in suo 
totwmetus est coms ul att (after Eu- 
tropius.—See note p. 227. 2.) 

DCD V. 22, quintus ei annus finem 
dedi (alter Eutropius. See note p. 234. E3e) 
DCD VIII. 14, nihil boni dixit. (See 
note p. 342. 34.) 

DCW Ea 4 ween on Gnidam vero si- 
Cite uieiteme( Cacia t on) die 3G) n)a.c.C Os Ces 
pressius, passiones yocant. (See 
note p. 371, 9.) 


278 


B. Possible but unproved mistakes. 

1. DCDIL 6, Fu gadaa. (See mote p.-5o)25.) 

2. DCD Tl.23, M Ar 0S cont) (ple it fae eG ees 
ifatis.;. (Seemote p..85. 22.) 

g. [na Aap Si11s. sag team Moat i4 40 ¢ adAis 
con tin 10 fse THvesD Aen Ce, quibus 
salutanti Dus, dex tet am op orrie@ece 
n.oluissiet. =(See note p.-130° 17.) 

4; DCD AW: 21. Sq aa) “ca lamaitat 6 plea am ioien 
Mis ie st aactotd ite F euiusdem anni 
trib Wu tum ei Mr lea xia-y e he SR omamn. 
Octoginta hom indam, ymaiiar sper 
iss € Pre feran twit \(See notes wpa aaeco, 
145. 3-) 


GENERAL ANALYSIS. 


First Part: Lirerary Sources oF DCD, I-X. Pages 9-59. 
I. Sources mentioned by Augustine. 
II. Sources not mentioned by Augustine. 
[Conspectus of Literary Sources. ] 
[Note on Composition of DCD by A. F. West. ] 


SECOND ParT: ANNOTATIONS TO DCD, I-X, 64-234 
Book I. p.. 64: 
Book hh ~~ pu2e7. 
Book -Tlky. “pe 241. 
Book LV." =p: 553. 
Book V.-= p. 163. 
Book VI. _ p. 179. 
Book VII. p. 182. 
Book VIII. p. 183. P 
Book IX. p. 204. 
Book X. Da 2bE,. 


THIRD PART: AUGUSTINE’S KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK. 236-273 
I. What does he say of his knowledge of Greek ? 237 


II. Use of Greek in his writings. 239 
1. Use of Latin versions. 239 

2. Scattered Greek words and phrases. 243 

3. Exegetical use of Greek— 245 

a. in: the LX, 245 
b. In the New Testament. 256 

4. Controversial use of Greek. 263 

5. Other considerations. 266 
Summary and conclusions. 269 


Some THESES: 274 





Page. 
Io 
22 


31 


34 
36 
45 
46 


47 
50 
54 
54 
61 
70 
80 
85 
132 
155 
159 
183 
201 


202 
219 
220 
224 
244 
250 
253 


ERRATA. 


The page numbers mean pages of this dissertation. 
pag pag 


Line from Top. 
34 
23 

IQ. 27. 31 


14 
16 
12 


14-19 


omit period after odorem 

insert in after evidently 

for supra read super (correcting Kuhl- 
mann) 

for Nib ris read Aiberis 

insert Plotinus before Cicero 

Vor clit oss read ef fos sis 

Sallust, and not Florus, is Augustine’s author- 
ity for the Servile war, as may be argued 
from other passages inthe DCD. See also 
Jiirges, De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis, 
pe 25. 

for annnos vead annos 

insert to after put 

omit only and add Sallust 

omit Florus or Eutropius (?) azd add Sallust 

for KVM. read XVIII. 

jor praectierunt read praeterrerunt 
add probably after was 

for Liviy read Livy 

for 625 read 125 

for OQ wwet wm zezd Ou te tem 

fer Epitone read Epitome 

insert BOOK VIII 

My misunderstanding of Augustine’s words. 
He does not mean that Apuleius was tried 
before Christian judges. 

for Ascelepius read Asclepius 

jor Osta cient ead © Uware rit 

for GX read Ow 

for muliereulae zeed muliereula 

for teretas read tederds 

for xirapxo. read xiNiapxou 

for 70 read To 














Wi 
1 1 01 2 01003 7143 | 





Ty f 
rT ' 


Te 7 ny J 
my a 
pI 





SSS 
— = SS SS 




















